Pay

AsYouThrow

Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing of

Municipal Solid Waste

Prepared by

Janice L. Canterbury

U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste
their expertise in unit pricing programs to EPA’s Unit Pricing Roundtable and to the

development of this guide: 

Nancy Lee Newell, City of Durham, North Carolina

Peggy Douglas, City of Knoxville, Tennessee

Barbara Cathey, City of Pasadena, California 

Bill Dunn, Minnesota Office of Waste Management 

Nick Pealy, Seattle Solid Waste Utility

Jody Harris, Maine Waste Management Agency 

Jamy Poth, City of Austin, Texas

Jeanne Becker, Becker Associates 

Lisa Skumatz and Cabell Breckinridge, Synergic Resources Corporation

Lon Hultgren, Town of Mansfield, Connecticut

Greg Harder, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 

Thomas Kusterer, Montgomery County Government, Maryland

Robert Arner, Northern Virginia Planning District Commission 

Their assistance is greatly appreciated.

ii
Key to Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . viii

PART I: Is Unit Pricing Right for 

Your Community? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

What Is Unit Pricing? . . . . . . . . . . 2

Potential Benefits to Unit Pricing . . . . . . . . 3

Potential Barriers to Unit Pricing . . . . . . . . 4

Types of Communities That Can Benefit From Unit Pricing . . . . 5

Making a Decision About Unit Pricing . . . . . . . 6

PART II: Building Consensus and Planning for 

Unit Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Setting Goals and Establishing a Unit Pricing Team . . . . . 11

Addressing Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Building a Public Consensus . . . . . . . . . 13

Scheduling Your Planning Activities . . . . . . . . 15

PART III: Designing an Integrated 

Unit Pricing Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

The Building Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Volume-Based Versus Weight-Based Programs . . . . . . 20

Container Options . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Pricing Structures . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Billing and Payment Systems . . . . . . . . . 26

Accounting Options . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Program Service Options . . . . . . . . . . 27

Multi-Family Housing . . . . . . . . . . 29

Residents With Special Needs . . . . . . . . . 30
Putting the Blocks Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Step 1: Estimating Demand . . . . . . . . . 35

Step 2: Choosing Components . . . . . . . . . 36

Step 3: Estimating Costs . . . . . . . . . . 37

Step 4: Developing a Rate Structure . . . . . . . . 37

Step 5: Calculating Revenues . . . . . . . . . 38

Step 6: Evaluating and Adjusting the Program . . . . . . 38

PART IV: Implementing and Monitoring 

Unit Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Implementation Activities . . . . . . . . . . 46

Public Education and Outreach . . . . . . . . . 47

Reorganizing Your Solid Waste Agency’s Administration . . . . 50

Developing a Schedule . . . . . . . . . . 52

Program Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . 52

APPENDIXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Appendix A: Unit Pricing Roundtable Discussion: Questions and Alternatives 63

Appendix B: Putting the Blocks Together: Additional Examples . . . 79

Appendix C: Definitions . . . . . . . . . . 83

Appendix D: Bibliography . . . . . . . . . 85

iv
In December 1992, as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s)

efforts to disseminate information about potential solutions to solid waste

management issues, the Agency organized a gathering of experts and local officials

involved in unit pricing programs. The Unit Pricing Roundtable resulted in a

wide-ranging discussion of the benefits and barriers associated with unit pricing

programs. This guide is based on the insights gained from that meeting.

Pay-As-You-Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing of Municipal Solid Waste is designed

to help local solid waste administrators and planners, elected officials, community

and civic groups, environmental and business organizations, and others find an

answer to the question, “Is unit pricing a viable option for our community, and, if so,

how do we implement it?” 

Since communities differ in size, demographics, governing jurisdiction, and other

factors, this guide presents lessons learned in a variety of communities that have

implemented unit pricing. As such, decision-makers can use the guide to chart a

course through the issues and potential obstacles involved in launching a unit pricing

program and tailoring it to meet the specific needs and goals of the community.

In addition to information drawn from the Roundtable, the guide is derived from

data on dozens of existing unit pricing programs in communities of varying sizes and

demographics. Case studies showcase differences in the types of collection systems,

fee structures, and complementary programs that can accompany unit pricing

programs. The guide also reflects information extracted from available literature, as

well as direct advice from experts in the field.
process of moving from general to specific notions of addressing waste management

issues. After considering long-term solid waste goals and options and how unit

pricing might help achieve them, decision-makers must move on to broad system

planning and finally to specific details. This guide is designed to mirror that process

of increasing specificity. It is divided into four parts:

Part I: Is Unit Pricing Right for Your Community? 

Part I offers an introduction to the concept of unit pricing, helps readers decide

whether unit pricing holds enough promise for their communities to merit continued

investigation and study, and provides an overview of the organization of the guide.

Part II: Building Consensus and Planning for Unit Pricing

Part II focuses on creating a framework for a successful system. It describes how to

establish goals, build a consensus for change within the community, make a decision

to pursue a unit pricing strategy, and perform basic planning tasks for the new

program.

Part III: Designing an Integrated Unit Pricing Program

Part III introduces solid waste officials to unit pricing program options, including

container type and size, pricing structures, and billing systems. It also presents a

six-step process for selecting options and designing a rate structure that will best

address the community’s unit pricing goals.

Part IV: Implementing and Monitoring Unit Pricing

Part IV guides communities through the process of launching their unit pricing

program. While implementation often requires an ongoing series of tasks, this part

focuses on the central issues: providing public education and reorganizing the solid

waste agency’s administrative office. Part IV also discusses ways to collect and

analyze data regarding the performance of the program.

To meet the needs of many decision-makers, this guide has been designed to be

modular in approach. Solid waste officials with little experience with unit pricing will

want to read the entire guide carefully. Decision-makers who are somewhat familiar

with unit pricing might want to skim Part I, while carefully studying the remainder of

the guide. Those individuals with a good understanding of the pros and cons of unit

pricing might proceed directly to the design and implementation guidelines offered in

Parts III and IV.

vi
To help readers focus on key issues, symbols are used throughout the guide to

indicate the themes and concepts that are central to unit pricing. These are:

There are no universally applicable guidelines that must be followed when

developing a unit pricing program. All unit pricing options offer their own

set of advantages and disadvantages. When designing a unit pricing program, decision-makers need to weigh these factors and choose the course

of action that best suits the needs of their communities.

Involving and educating the public is key to the success of any unit 

pricing program.

One of the biggest issues associated with unit pricing programs concerns

the costs to design and implement a program. Residents also will be concerned about waste collection fees.

EPA has established a hierarchy identifying the preferred methods for

managing solid waste. At the top of the hierarchy is waste prevention.

Recycling (including composting) is the next preferred technique, used

for managing the waste that cannot be prevented. Finally, landfilling and

combustion can be used to dispose of the remaining waste.

Decision-makers will need to address some potential hurdles to implementing unit pricing. These include recovering expenses, increased 

administrative costs, perception of increased costs being passed on to

citizens, and illegal dumping.

COSTS

EDUCATION

TRADEOFFS

HIERARCHY

BARRIERS
g g

Community?

Over the past several years, many communities across

the United States have found it increasingly diff icult to

effectively and economically manage their municipal

solid waste (MSW). Against a backdrop of steadily

rising waste generation rates, many communities have seen 

their local landfills closing, tipping fees rising, and prospects 

for siting new disposal facilities diminishing. Other demands on

waste management systems include growing public awareness

of general environmental issues, as well as state and locally

legislated waste prevention and recycling goals. 

In response, many communities have begun adopting new

approaches to waste management, such as collecting materials

for recycling; composting yard trimmings and other organic

materials; and conducting education programs intended to help

residents understand the need for waste prevention and

recycling. In addition, recognizing that market-based

approaches are proving to be important tools in dealing with

environmental issues, some communities have turned to

economic incentives to encourage residents to prevent waste

whenever possible and recycle or compost the remainder. 

One such incentive system is unit pricing.

IS UNIT PRICING RIGHT FOR YOUR COMMUNIT Y? 
pg

Unit pricing, also known as variable rate pricing or pay-as-you-th

is a system under which residents pay for municipal waste managem

services per unit of waste collected rather than through a fixed fee. 

pricing takes into account variations in waste generation rates by

charging households or residents based on the amount of trash they 

at the curb, thereby offering individuals an incentive to reduce the

amount of waste they generate and dispose of.

Unit pricing programs can take two basic forms. Residents can be

charged by:

• Volume of waste, using bags, tags or stickers

or prescribed sizes of waste cans.

• Weight of waste, with the municipality

measuring at the curbside the amount of

waste set out for collection.

While they operate differently from one

another, these systems share one defining

characteristic: residents who throw away mor

more.

If the basic concept of unit pricing is

straightforward, however, the decision to ado

such a program is far from simple. To help

communities considering unit pricing as a sol

to their mounting solid waste management

difficulties, EPA convened a Unit Pricing

Roundtable, attended by representatives from

communities that had implemented unit pricing or were actively

considering it. EPA then organized the resulting wealth of ideas and

advice to produce this guide. EPA designed the guide to help reader

determine whether unit pricing is a viable option for their commun

and, if so, which factors to consider when planning and implementi

such a program.

its unit pricing

program in

1924, and

Richmond,

California,

launched a unit

pricing program

in 1916!

By encouraging residents

to prevent waste and

recycle whenever

possible, unit pricing is

helping communities to

better manage their solid

waste.

2
amount of waste disposed of in a community. Some communities

with unit pricing programs report that unit pricing helped their

municipality achieve reductions of 25 to 45 percent in the amount of

waste shipped to disposal facilities.

Reduced waste disposal costs. When the amount of waste is

reduced, communities often find their overall MSW management

costs have declined as well. (A portion of the revenues previously

spent on waste disposal, however, may need to be dedicated to

recycling, composting, or other diversion activities.)

Increased waste prevention. To take advantage of the potential

savings that unit pricing offers, residents typically modify their

traditional purchasing and consumption patterns to reduce the amount

of waste they place at the curb. These behavioral changes have

beneficial environmental effects beyond reduced waste generation,

often including reduced energy usage and materials conservation. 

Increased participation in composting and recycling programs.

Under unit pricing, new or existing recycling and yard waste

composting programs become opportunities for residents to 

divert waste for which they otherwise would pay. Experience has

shown that these programs are the perfect complement for unit

pricing: analysis of existing unit pricing systems shows that

composting and recycling programs divert 8 to 13 percent more waste

by weight when used in conjunction with a unit pricing program. 

Support of the waste management hierarchy. By creating an 

incentive to reduce as much waste as possible using source reduction

and to recycle and/or compost the waste that cannot be prevented,

unit pricing supports the hierarchy of waste management techniques

defined by EPA.

More equitable waste management fee structure. Traditional

waste management fees, in effect, require residents who generate a

small amount of waste to subsidize the greater generation rates of

their neighbors. Under unit pricing, waste removal charges are based

on the level of service the municipality provides to collect and

dispose of the waste, similar to the way residents are charged for gas

or electricity. Because the customer is charged only for the level of

HIERAR

COS

IS UNIT PRICING RIGHT FOR YOUR COMMUNIT Y? 
Potential Barriers to Unit Pricing

While there are clearly benefits associated with unit pricing

programs, there also are potential barriers. Communities considerin

pricing should be aware of the costs and possible community rela

implications associated with the following issues:

Illegal dumping. Some residents have strong reservations abou

pricing, believing it will encourage illegal dumping or burning o

waste in their area. Communities can counter this fear with an

effective public education program. Since most communities wi

unit pricing programs have reported that illegal dumping proved 

be less of a concern than anticipated, providing residents with t

information can help allay their concerns over illegal dumping.

Recovering expenses. Since unit pricing offers a variable rate 

residents, the potential exists for uneven cash flow that could m

harder to operate a unit pricing program. To address this,

communities must be sure to set prices at the appropriate level t

ensure that, on average, sufficient funds are raised to pay for wa

collection, complementary programs, and special services.

Administrative costs. Effectively establishing rates, billing

residents, and collecting payments under a unit pricing program 

likely increase a waste management agency’s administrative cos

Communities need to set waste collection prices at a level that c

cover these costs.

Perception of increased costs to residents. While a unit pr

program offers residents greater control over the cost of collectin

their waste, it could initially be seen as a rate increase. An effec

public outreach campaign that clearly demonstrates the current 

of waste management and the potential reductions offered by un

pricing will help to address this perception.

Multi-family housing. Extending direct waste reduction incen

to residents of multi-family housing can present a challenge. Sin

waste generated by these residents typically is combined in a ce

COSTS

BARRIERS

In all unit pricing

programs,

residents who

throw away more

pay more.

4
Careful planning and design of a unit pricing program to meet

specific community needs is the best solution to these potential

difficulties. In particular, an effective public education program

designed to communicate the need for unit pricing and address the

potential concerns of residents will help meet these challenges. (Public

education programs are discussed in detail in Part IV of this guide.)

Types of Communities That Can Ben

From Unit Pr

Unit pricing programs work best when tailored to local needs. All types

of communities can design unit pricing programs that will help achieve the

goals of reducing waste generation and easing waste management

difficulties; large, medium-sized, and small

communities in every region of the

country have realized these benefits.

Local officials indicate that unit pricing

programs also work well whether solid

waste services are carried out by

municipal or by private haulers.

As a result, unit pricing has grown

significantly over the last few years. In the

1980s, only a handful of communities in

the United States operated unit pricing

programs. Now, over 1,000 communities

have unit pricing programs in place. By

January 1994, over 1,800 programs are

scheduled to be in operation. In addition,

laws in 10 states currently mandate or

encourage unit pricing programs. Unit pricing is a f

businesses. For years

have been paying 

services based 

dumpsters an

IS UNIT PRICING RIGHT FOR YOUR COMMUNIT Y? 
potential for complementary programs, the level of administrativ

change necessary, and the extent to which residents will support 

oppose unit pricing.

6
p ypgyy

It will provide many suggestions borne of successful programs of all types and

sizes around the country. However, f inal decisions about whether to adopt unit

pricing, what type of system to use, and how to implement it should be made

based on local needs and circumstances.

How expensive is it to implement unit pricing?

The cost of implementing a unit pricing program is directly related to how

complex the selected system is, how it is f inanced, and how different it is from the

current waste removal system. Many communities have implemented unit pricing

with minimal upfront and ongoing costs. Over the long term, communities with unit

pricing programs have generally reported them to be cost-effective methods of

achieving their waste management goals.

Our community has had significant fiscal problems. Would

unit pricing be appropriate?

A community introducing unit pricing may choose to use fees either to supplement

or to replace current revenue sources. While a community with a tight waste

management budget may choose to use unit pricing fees to supplement current

revenue sources, the public may resist such fees as simply an additional tax. Other

communities stress that local acceptance of a unit pricing program is greater if

current taxes, such as general or property taxes, are reduced by the amount of

the new solid waste fees.

IS UNIT PRICING RIGHT FOR YOUR COMMUNIT Y? 
Unit pricing requires residents to pay for each unit of waste that

they dispose of. This billing arrangement is similar to fees assessed on

other essential services (such as water and electricity), where the

charge is based on usage.

Unit pricing has been effective in reducing the amount of solid waste

disposed of in all types of communities across the country.

Communities using unit pricing in tandem with recycling and

composting programs have found these programs increase each

other’s effectiveness.

This guide is designed to provide basic information about planning

and operating a unit pricing program. Decisions regarding the actual

program you adopt will be based on your community’s unique

circumstances.

8
Larger communities. While unit pricing is not yet common in the largest

cities, it has been working successfully in Anaheim, Glendale, Pasadena, and Oakland, California; Aurora, Illinois; Lansing, Michigan; Seattle, Washington; and a number of other communities with populations over 100,000. In addition, state laws in

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington either currently or soon will require implementation of unit pricing programs in communities statewide, regardless of size

(with some exceptions).

County-wide. Unit pricing also can be implemented on a county-wide basis.

Tompkins County, New York; Hennepin County, Minnesota; and King County,

Washington all have implemented unit pricing programs.

Unit Pricing Cuts Down on Waste Volume

Unit pricing can result in dramatic declines in the amount of waste set out for

collection. The Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, noted a 30-percent reduction

in waste volume after implementing a unit pricing program. Seattle, Washington,

reported a decline in waste generation from an average of 3.5 waste cans to 1.7

cans per household per week after unit pricing was launched. This amount was

further reduced to just one can per household per week after complementary

curbside recycling and composting programs were introduced (see the discussion

of complementary programs in Part III).

Most communities, however, cannot delineate what percentage of waste reduction is directly attributable to unit pricing and what percentage is due to other factors, such as new recycling programs, consumer education, or even economic

recession. Nevertheless, studies conducted over the last few years indicate consistent waste reductions in unit pricing communities. For example, a study at

Duke University by Dr. Daniel Blume examined 14 cities with unit pricing. The

waste reductions in this study ranged from 18 to 65 percent. The average waste

reduction was 44 percent.

IS UNIT PRICING RIGHT FOR YOUR COMMUNIT Y? 
Building Consensus and Planning

for Unit Pricing

Unit pricing involves many important decisions

regarding how to perform and pay for solid waste

services. To be sure that their communities are

choosing the best options, many solid waste

agencies have initiated a planning process that helps lay

the groundwork for sound decisions and coordinated

implementation. This process helps clarify the

community’s solid waste needs and goals, identify likely

barriers and methods of overcoming them, and inform and

educate residents about unit pricing and how it can

improve solid waste management in the community.

10
like an abstract exercise, clearly defined and measurable objectives for

your program are invaluable when deciding which unit pricing

options would work best in your community. Goal-setting can help

build community consensus and facilitate efficient monitoring and

evaluation of the unit pricing program’s progress. 

Although you will want to solicit input from local residents and other

interested parties before coming up with a final list of goals, it is useful to

first examine and prioritize goals internally before introducing them to the

community. Consider holding an internal brainstorming session to establish

a preliminary list of goals. This session could last anywhere from one hour

to half a day, depending on the size and makeup of your community, the

issues that need to be addressed in the session, and the needs and

structure of your agency. A shorter, followup session to revisit, refine,

and prioritize goals also might be useful.

Prioritizing goals also is important since the weight that you assign to

goals now will help you design the rate structure for the program. (Setting

rate structures is described in Part III of the guide.) In addition, achieving

every objective on a community’s list can be difficult. Consider the

tradeoffs among program costs, citizen convenience, staffing changes, and

other factors as you prioritize your goals. Circumstances often require

compromise in one area in exchange for progress in another. 

Specific goals and objectives can vary significantly among

communities. Examples include:

Encouraging waste prevention and recycling. A community

should set unit prices at levels high enough to encourage households

to reduce waste generation and to recycle and compost. This helps to

achieve existing recycling goals and to conserve landfill space. 

Raising sufficient revenue to cover municipal solid waste

management costs. A unit pricing program should bring in enough

revenue to cover both the program’s variable costs and its more stable or

fixed costs. Variable costs, such as landfill tipping fees, are the expenses

that fluctuate with changes in the amount of solid waste collected.

Fixed costs are costs that change only rarely, such as rent for agency

offices, or that change only after large-scale waste collection changes,

such as the number of collection trucks needed.

COSTS

TRADEOFFS

HIERARCHY

BUILDING CONSENSUS AND PLANNING FOR UNIT PRIC
and on radio and television stations. Including these individuals in 

planning process gives the community a sense of program ownershi

In addition, team members can help other residents in the commu

understand the specifics of the program as it evolves and can provide 

agency with valuable input on residents’ concerns about the program.

Members of the team also can serve as a sounding board to help ensur

strong community participation throughout the planning process.

Addressing Barriers

The team or council also can help your agency identify potentia

barriers to implementing unit pricing in your community and consi

ways in which these barriers can be addressed. Illegal dumping and

burning of waste is one of the mostly frequently cited barriers to un

pricing. Yet participants at EPA’s Unit Pricing Roundtable and

communities with unit pricing programs r

that illegal dumping has occurred prior to

implementing a program and tends to pers

some level, regardless of the way in which

residents are charged for solid waste

management. 

The key is to design a unit pricing prog

that significantly deters illegal dumping a

burning. Public education and enforcemen

policies are the most effective tools in

addressing this barrier. Informing resident

the experiences of communities with unit

pricing and setting up fair but aggressive

enforcement policies to respond to incident

illegal dumping also are essential.

Other potential barriers to unit pricing include recovering

expenses, covering administrative costs, ensuring that unit pricin

not perceived as a rate increase by residents, implementing unit

pricing in multi-family buildings, addressing physical or financia

difficulties for senior citizens, and overcoming resistance to chan

BARRIERS

your community.

A unit pricing team composed

of residents, civic leaders, and

town officials can help ensure

the development of a

successful unit pricing program.

12
Building a Public Cons

Public education is critical to the planning, design, and

implementation stages of a unit pricing program. In fact, education is the

linchpin holding all of these phases together. While educating the public

might at first seem unnecessary and expensive, the experiences of

communities that have implemented unit pricing programs indicate that

a good public relations program more than pays for itself.

Such a program is effective at developing a

general consensus among residents on the need

for unit pricing. Community support is vital to the

long-term success of a unit pricing program. In

fact, communities that have implemented unit

pricing programs are nearly unanimous in listing

education and community relations as the most

important elements of a successful unit pricing

program. Public education can combat fears and

myths about unit pricing (such as the fear of

increased illegal dumping) and help avoid or

mitigate many potential implementation problems.

When first reaching out to residents during the

planning stage, don’t be surprised if many

residents react with skepticism to the idea of unit

pricing. Initial opposition is often related to a perception that unit

pricing will result in an additional financial burden. Opposition also

might be due simply to a natural resistance to change. Resistance to unit

pricing is especially prevalent in communities where solid waste

management fees are hidden in general or property taxes. 

To counter this opposition, municipal officials can inform residents

of the current difficulties associated with waste collection and

management. In particular, officials can explain the costs to residents of

the current system of waste management. Next, they could present the

goals for improving the management of solid waste in the community. In

this context, officials can introduce unit pricing, discuss its potential for

meeting these objectives, and address any questions and concerns that

residents have expressed about the new program.

In Austin, Texas, 

officials include

their public outr

EDUCATION

BUILDING CONSENSUS AND PLANNING FOR UNIT PRIC
recycle, and compost are charged less.

Waste reduction. The program must significantly reduce the

community’s generation of waste, increase the rate of recycling, 

therefore, reduce the amount of waste requiring disposal in land

and combustors.

Reductions in waste management costs. By helping to alter

household waste generation patterns, the program should help redu

cost of collecting and disposing of the community’s solid waste.

Municipal improvements. The program should contribute to

improvements in the quality of life in the community, such as

resource conservation and land preservation. 

In addition to deciding what information needs to be communic

solid waste officials also should consider how best to reach residen

the community. An unspecified change in waste management servic

scheduled to occur at some future date is not likely to capture a

community’s attention. The following activities represent some of th

ways in which officials can explain the benefits of unit pricing:

Hold public meetings. Interactive public meetings offer solid 

officials the opportunity to present the case for unit pricing. Suc

meetings also give citizens the sense that their concerns are be

heard and addressed in the eventual program.

Prepare briefing papers for elected officials. As both shape

and followers of public opinion, elected officials tend to be at the 

of public policy debates. Because well-informed leadership can 

issues in such a way as to attract residents’ interest, solid waste

officials might want to provide elected officials with brief summ

of the issues associated with solid waste management and the li

benefits of a unit pricing program.

Issue press releases. Press coverage of a change in the way th

community pays for its solid waste collection services is inevita

Keeping key radio, television, and newspaper outlets well inform

of the reasoning behind the move to unit pricing can make the p

valuable participant in the decision-making process and prepare 

community for an upcoming change.

At EPA’s Unit

Pricing

Roundtable,

panelists ranked

education and

community

relations as the

most important

elements of a

successful unit

pricing program.

14
Scheduling Your Planning Acti

Even before the final decision is made to pursue unit pricing, some 

basic planning issues can be addressed. Chief among these are

legal/jurisdictional issues and timing. Generally, states extend to local

jurisdictions the authority to provide waste management services and to

charge residents accordingly. During the planning process, however,

many communities have the unit pricing team research the

municipality’s legal basis for implementing a new solid waste service

pricing mechanism rather than risk discovering a problem unexpectedly

during implementation.

Since unit pricing programs often involve a number of steps and

some complex decision-making, consider developing a timeline for

planning, designing, and implementing your program. Based on the

experiences of communities that have successfully implemented unit

pricing, planning for unit pricing should begin at least a year in advance

of your targeted start date. You can establish goals for the unit pricing

program and begin explaining the program to the community from 9 to

12 months before program implementation. Public education should

continue throughout the months prior to the program and, to some

extent, after the program is underway. You can identify the legal

framework for the program at least six months before the start of a

program. A detailed suggested timeline for a unit pricing program is

provided in Part IV of this guide.

BUILDING CONSENSUS AND PLANNING FOR UNIT PRIC
g y g pg

general and unit pricing in particular often involve a series of tradeoffs. For

example, a community may decide to sacrifice some convenience for households 

costs or to create a stronger waste-reduction incentive. Establishing goals and prio

early in the planning process can make it easier to make difficult choices as they 

Why is public input so important? We have already

consulted with many solid waste experts, who know a lo

more about solid waste issues than residents.

Municipal off icials and experts agree—no unit pricing program is going to work 

local residents oppose it. Since improved solid waste management require

good faith effort from residents to reduce the amount of waste they dispose 

makes sense to include residents as equal partners.

16
Establish realistic goals for your unit pricing program that address your

community’s most pressing waste management needs. 

Involve the community in the planning process. Representatives from

community organizations can increase acceptance of unit pricing and facilitate

implementation.

Plan for the possibility of illegal dumping or burning. In addition to explaining

other communities’ experiences with illegal dumping, let residents know about

legal alternatives for managing and disposing of solid waste. Also explain that

concrete steps, such as assessing penalties for violators, will be taken.

Public education cannot be stressed enough. Promoting the strengths of unit

pricing and addressing residents’ concerns is critical to the success of your

program.

Provide elected officials with information on the benefits of unit pricing

programs to help them address residents’ concerns. Also, keep local

officials informed of decisions made about the program as it evolves.

Be sure to carefully research your legal authority to establish and enforce a

unit pricing program. Based on this research and on the advice of your

municipality’s legal counsel, ordinances may be necessary to establish the program.

Plan ahead by establishing a timeline for your program.

BUILDING CONSENSUS AND PLANNING FOR UNIT PRIC
however, the solid waste department also has worked with the police depar

to track license plates and identify violators.

In Seattle, Washington, unit pricing also has not been associated with a

crease in illegal dumping. In fact, 60 to 80 percent of the illegal dumping incide

the city are associated with remodeling waste, refrigerators, and construction 

waste that the city suspects comes from small contractors who do hauling on t

side and dump the refuse. Seattle officials are considering licensing these haule

requiring remodelers to verify that their material has been properly disposed o

The city of Pasadena, California, reports similar findings. A survey done 

the city’s landfill indicated that Pasadena was disposing of one-third more tr

than was indicated in a waste generation study completed in the city. Pasade

suspects that this waste is made up of construction and demolition debris

dropped off by small contractors. In the future, instead of contracting with 

individual haulers, Pasadena may require those applying for a building perm

use licensed haulers to take construction and demolition materials to the la

18
Designing an Integrated Uni

Pricing Program

To this point, this guide has presented an

overview of the major benef its and barriers to

unit pricing, followed by suggestions on how to

def ine the objectives of your program and

begin building a consensus for unit pricing in your

community. This portion of the guide introduces

issues relating to the exact structure of your

community’s unit pricing program. The f irst half of

Part III, “The Building Blocks,” discusses the

advantages and disadvantages of the specif ic

program components and service options from which

you can choose. This is followed by “Putting the

Blocks Together,” a six-step process to help you

design a successful unit pricing program.

DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRA
these services to residents with special needs. During the developm

a unit pricing program, however, viewing these issues in the contex

how they might affect the success of your program is important.

The process of selecting program components and service option

begin as much as nine months before the start of a program. This pa

the guide points out the kinds of decisions you need to make during 

process, including:

• Choosing a volume-based or weight-based system

• Selecting containers

• Examining pricing structures

• Considering billing procedures

• Determining service options and complementary programs

• Including multi-family buildings

• Accommodating individuals with special needs

Communities also need to consider other factors, such as the 

remaining life of existing containers, the cost of container replacem

the preferences of customers, and the impact of assessing additiona

taxes or fees on households. Later in this section of the guide, a six-

process for designing an actual unit pricing rate structure is present

This process should help you tailor a rate structure to local conditio

Volume-Based Versus Weight-Based Program

One of the first decisions to be made when designing a unit pricin

program is to determine how solid waste will be measured. Based on y

unit pricing goals, local budgetary constraints, and other factors, you n

to decide whether your system will charge residents for collection serv

based on the weight or the volume of waste they generate. The two sys

have very different design and equipment requirements.

Under volume-based systems, residents are charged for waste

collection based on the number and size of waste containers that th

use. Households are either 1) charged directly for waste collection b

on the number of bags or cans set out at the curbside, or 2) required 

purchase special trash bags (or tags or stickers for trash bags) that

include the cost of waste collection in the purchase price.

20
waste reduction occurs. In

addition, residents can easily

understand this type of system

and perceive it as fair.

Weight-based systems also provide

a more precise measurement of

waste generation than

volume-based systems.

On the other hand,

weight-based systems tend to be

more expensive to implement and operate than volume-based systems

because special equipment is required and more labor typically is

necessary to handle the more complex billing system. In addition, some

of the equipment used to weigh the waste, record the data, and bill the

customer is still experimental. Startup costs for these systems can

include truck-mounted scales for weighing waste and some type of

system (such as bar-coding on waste cans) for entering this information

into a computer for accurate billing. 

While volume-based systems are less costly to set up

and operate, a potential disadvantage associated with these

systems is that residents might be tempted to compact their

waste. Some residents will compact more than others,

perhaps even using mechanical compactors. This reduces

the ability of unit pricing to offer more equitable charges

for waste collection services and complicates the task of

identifying the impact of unit pricing on the community’s

rate of solid waste generation. Additionally, depending on

the system chosen, there can be less of an incentive to

reduce waste since such reductions might not translate

into direct savings for the resident.

Although over 1,000 communities nationwide have unit pricing

programs in place, very few have fully implemented weight-based

programs. Accordingly, the remainder of this guide focuses

predominantly on the process of designing and implementing a

volume-based unit pricing program.

For its w

pricing pr

of Farmingto

 has inves

truck

waste a

TRADEOFFS

. . . and recor

resident in

on

DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRA
established billing system (that cannot be drastical

overhauled) can govern container type and rate stru

A unit pricing program can be designed around the following cont

options:

Large cans. Under this system, households are provided with

single, large waste cans, often with a capacity of 50 or 60 gallon

Each household is then charged according to the number of cans 

they use.

Small or variable cans.This system uses a set of standard,

graduated can sizes, often ranging from approximately 20 to 60

gallons in capacity. Typically, these systems operate on a subscr

basis, under which residents choose in advance the number and 

of cans they wish to use.

Prepaid bags.This system uses colored or otherwise distinct

marked standard-sized trash bags, typically 20 to 30 gallons in

capacity. Residents purchase the bags from the solid waste agen

through outlets such as municipal offices and retail stores. Only

waste that is placed in the bags is collected.

Prepaid tags or stickers.Residents purchase tags or sticke

from the solid waste agency and affix them to their own trash ba

The tag or sticker specifies the size of bag it covers.

Each system has its own specific advantages and disadvantages rel

to such issues as 1) offering a system that residents view as equitabl

2) creating as direct an economic incentive for waste reduction as poss

and 3) assuring revenue stability for the solid waste agency. Other is

to consider when weighing the pros and cons of different container 

include simplicity of billing, compatibility with existing waste colle

services, ease of collection for work crews, sanitation and aesthetics

budgetary constraints, and community solid waste goals.

The primary benefit of a single, large container size is revenue

stability. When communities use large containers, the number of can

out each week tends to remain fairly constant, and so do revenues. T

primary disadvantage associated with this container choice is that

households that don’t generate much waste have no economic incen

Austin, Texas, provides

residents with either 30-,

60-, or 90-gallon cans as

part of its unit pricing

program.

22
to establish an inventory and distribution system that could be

expensive to set up and maintain. Additionally, billing for this

method can be more complex in some communities.

Like variable cans, prepaid bags encourage greater waste

reduction than large cans if the bag size is configured so that

residents that generate less waste pay less. Additionally, since

residents pay for waste collection through the purchase of the

bags, there is no billing, which means this type of system is

relatively inexpensive to implement and maintain. The primary

disadvantage associated with bags is that there is greater revenue

uncertainty than with can systems. An individual might, for

example, buy several months’ worth of bags at one time and then

none for many weeks. Also, semiautomatic collection vehicles

that require residents to use a rigid container might not be able

to adapt to bag collection. Bags also can tear or be torn open by

animals, resulting in scattered trash.

Prepaid tag or sticker systems offer many of the same advantages as

bag systems. Chief among these is that such systems directly encourage

waste reduction, since different stickers can be used to identify different

amounts of waste “set-outs” (the waste residents set out for collection).

This means, however, that the solid waste agency must establish and

enforce size limits for each type of sticker. As with bags, waste collection

is paid for upfront, so no billing needs to be done. Also like bags,

stickers or tags offer less revenue stability. In addition, stickers can fall

off in rainy or cold weather, and both tags and stickers can be

counterfeited or stolen.

The advantages and disadvantages of each of these container options

are described in more detail in Table 3-2 at the end of this chapter. You

don’t have to be locked into one type of system, however, if you plan for

the possibility of change. Some communities conduct a pilot program in

one part of the municipality before implementing unit pricing

communitywide. In this way, difficulties can be worked out early in the

process, when modifications are still relatively easy. 

L

mar

stic

eliminate c

speed cu

DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRAM 
1. The proportional (linear) rate system is the simplest rate

structure. It entails charging households a flat price for each contain

waste they place out for collection. This rate structure provides a str

incentive for customers to reduce waste. It also is easy to administer 

bill. Careful consideration is often required, however, to select a pric

container that avoids cash flow difficulties that can hinder a new

program. While setting too high a price will increase resistance to un

pricing, setting too low a price may cause periodic revenue shortfall

can lessen the waste reduction incentive). In addition, when setting 

decision-makers should assume that some level of waste compaction 

occur. They also should plan for success, since as people begin to reduc

amount of waste they set out, the solid waste agency will see a correspo

drop in revenues paid for waste collection.

Weighing the Tradeoffs When Setting Pricing Structur

Decision-makers considering such issues as container choices, rate structure

and service options quickly realize that all of these choices are closely related.

Decisions in one area will influence, or even determine, how your community

responds to the remaining choices.

When considering container options, for example, a smaller community with

fewer resources might favor a bag-based system because of its generally lower

implementation and administrative expenses. Such systems, however, have the

potential for revenue gaps that the community might not be able to bridge. As 

result, a community might prefer a two-tiered or multi-tiered rate structure,

whose base fee would help prevent such instability.

By contrast, a larger community interested in providing a stronger incentive to red

waste might favor a proportional or variable container rate and higher per contain

fees. To avoid significant revenue fluctuations, such communities might choose a

can-based subscription system that ensures a steady cash flow. 

There is no one best approach to unit pricing. Throughout the design process, 

will need to determine the specific combination of container choices, rate

structures, and service options that will maximize efficiency and enable your

community to meet its solid waste goals.

24
separately. Two-tiered rate systems assess households both a fixed fee

and a per container fee. Under this system, a monthly flat fee is set for

solid waste services to ensure that fixed costs are covered; a separate,

per-container charge is then used to cover the variable costs. In

Pennsburg, Pennsylvania, the solid waste agency charges residents a flat

$65 per year plus $1 per 30-gallon bag of waste placed at the curb for

pickup. This system provides more stable revenue flows for the

community but offers less waste reduction incentives than proportional or

variable container rates. Some communities use the two-tiered rate

structure as a transition system. Once decision-makers are able to gauge

customers’ response to unit pricing, a proportional rate structure could

be introduced to encourage greater waste reduction. 

4. Multi-tiered rate systems charge households a fixed fee plus

variable fees for different container sizes. For example, a community might

charge a basic $10 monthly service fee plus $2 per 60-gallon can, or $1 per

30-gallon bag. This rate structure offers similar advantages to two-tiered

rates and also encourage waste reduction. This type of rate structure is the

most complex, however, and could be difficult to administer and bill.

Table 3.1. 

Pricing Options

System Rate

Proportional (linear) Flat rate per container

Variable container Different rates for different size containers

Two-tiered Flat fee (usually charged on a monthly basis) 

and flat rate per container

Multi-tiered Flat fee (usually charged on a monthly basis) 

and different rates for different size containers

DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRA
be sold at the courthouse or city hall, at local retail stores, or at the

hauler’s office. Care should be taken to ensure that a sufficient num

easily accessible outlets are available for residents.

Under subscription systems, residents notify the solid waste age

of their “subscription level,” or the number of containers they anticipa

setting out each collection cycle. The customer is then billed on a regu

basis for these containers. If customers are able to reduce the amount o

waste they generate, they can select a lower subscription level and sav

money. In many programs, these subscription fees are set at a level tha

covers the purchase of a designated number of additional bags or cans 

any waste that a customer disposes of above their subscription level. T

system offers fewer fluctuations in revenues, although the waste reducti

incentive is lower 0because residents who reduce their waste generation 

only receive a reduction in their waste collection bill after requesting th

municipality to change the number of cans for which they pay.

An actual set-out system bills customers based on the actual num

of containers set out for collection. This approach requires the haul

count the number of bags, tags, or cans set out and to record the

information so that households can be billed later. 

To address citizens’ concerns about “hidden” or “double” fees, s

communities that implement unit pricing either reduce the househo

tax rate commensurate with the unit pricing fee or decide not to rai

tax base proportionately with the revenues received from unit pricin

Meet with the citizens advisory council to work out the details fo

pricing system geared to your local needs and circumstances.

Accounting Options

Regardless of how they collect payment, most communities tend 

manage the finances of their solid waste activities as one item in the

municipal budget. A few communities, however, are using alternativ

accounting approaches to complement their unit pricing programs. O

such approach is the use of “full cost accounting.” Using full cost

accounting enables a community to consider all costs and revenues

associated with a task such as solid waste management, including

depreciation of capital costs, amortization of future costs, and a full

accounting of indirect costs. This method can help a community

COSTS

26
management in the future.

Program Service Options 

The next step is to determine which solid waste services are most

important to residents. Successful programs offer an array of solid waste

services that citizens need and appreciate. The goal-setting process

described in Part II of this guide identifies many of these services. 

Offering different services does add layers of complexity to a unit

pricing program, especially to the billing component. Yet providing such

service enhancements greatly increases overall citizen acceptance of the

program. A carefully selected and priced service array allows a

community to offer premium municipal solid

waste services to households that want them,

while generating sufficient revenues to support core

solid waste collection services. The following

sections highlight some of the most popular service

options, many of which are complementary to basic

trash removal.

Complementary Programs

Complementary programs are those that

enhance the unit pricing program and encourage

residents to prevent and reduce waste. The most

common complementary programs are 1) recycling

and 2) collection of yard trimmings for

composting. Providing recycling and composting collection services

enables both types of programs to reach their maximum effectiveness. In

fact, in many cases, recycling and composting are major contributors to the

success of a unit pricing program.

Many communities already have some type of curbside collection or

voluntary drop-off recycling program in place. Linking recycling and

composting with unit pricing provides customers with an environmentally

responsible way to manage their waste. In addition, since the cost of

these programs can be built in to unit pricing fees, communities can

recover these expenses without creating an economic disincentive to

recycle. The extent of the recycling program is an important factor, as

TRADEO

Prov

program 

with 

furth

amoun

community m

DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRA
the lawn), also will enhance the unit pricin

program. For example, the community of

Austin, Texas, mixes the yard trimmings it

collects from residents with sewage sludge 

produce compost called “Dillo Dirt,” which 

sold to nurseries as fertilizer, and Durham,

North Carolina, makes landscaping mulch 

brush. Distributing “how-to” materials can help increase the amoun

organic waste residents compost, and some municipalities even pro

their residents with free compost bins.

In communities where weekly recycling or composting is too co

curbside collection can be scheduled every other week or once a mo

In addition, municipalities can encourage haulers to provide recycl

services by including a risk-sharing clause in their contracts. Such

clauses require the municipality to share with the hauler the risk of

fluctuations in the price of recyclable materials. If a recycling comp

requires payment to process a certain collected material whose valu

dropped substantially, for example, the hauler and municipality wo

bear these costs together. Some communities, however, might not fe

their budget would allow them to incur additional, unexpected cost

Backyard Collections

Backyard collection of waste and/or recyclables can be considered 

service enhancement that complements a unit pricing system. With th

service, haulers remove residential waste and recyclables from backya

garages, or wherever residents prefer, rather than requiring them to ha

material to the curb. Residents might pay extra for this service. When

setting a price for backyard collection services, a community should

consider costs to collect waste from the curb, transport it, and dispose 

The higher charge for backyard waste removal should reflect the adde

municipal resources required for such a service.

Curbside Collection of Bulky Items

Curbside collection of large items, such as refrigerators and othe

major appliances, is another service that complements basic trash

removal. In some communities with unit pricing, residents pay extr

Complementary programs also

can benefit from a strong public

education effort.

COSTS

28
MultiFamily Housing

One of the biggest challenges for communities implementing unit

pricing is how to include multi-family (five units or more) residential

structures into the program. Such buildings can house a large portion of

the population, particularly in densely populated areas. Because waste

often is collected from residents of such structures per building, rather than

per unit, it might be difficult to offer these residents a direct economic 

incentive to reduce waste with unit pricing. To compound this problem,

because many multi-family buildings receive less convenient recycling

services than single-family housing units, residents of multi-family

buildings might have fewer avenues for waste reduction.

There are several possible options to resolve multi-family barriers.

One option is to have the building manager sell bags or tags to each

resident. When households use these tags or bags, those that generate

more waste end up paying more for waste collection. Problems arise

Tips for Accommodating Residents of Multi-Family Households

A number of ideas were presented at EPA’s Unit Pricing Roundtable to help extend to

residents of multi-family households the direct economic incentives inherent in unit

pricing. One suggestion was to request that building managers pass on trash collection

savings to residents in the form of cash rebates, rent reductions, or some free building

services, although the impact of the incentive would be diluted since it is spread over

all the tenants in the building.

New technologies, such as a bar code reader to identify the tenant and a scale at the

bottom of the chute to record the weight, also were suggested as possible solutions.

These technologies offer the potential for accurately recording the exact waste

generation for each tenant.

In addition, building codes for new and renovated buildings could be amended to

require the installation of separate chutes for recycling and for garbage disposal.

Residents also could be required to use a trash token or some type of identifying

code to gain access to a garbage chute.

BARRIE

DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRA
g 

communities is provided in Table 3-2 at the back of this section.) 

Residents With Special Needs

Many communities considering unit pricing are concerned abou

special needs of physically limited or disabled citizens and those li

on fixed or low incomes. For example, some senior citizens and dis

residents may be physically unable to move trash containers to the 

Communities may wish to consider offering such residents backyard

collection services at a reduced rate or at no extra charge. Such spec

considerations should be factored in to your unit pricing rate struct

While the fees associated with unit pricing could represent a

potential problem for some residents, unit pricing systems can be

structured to allow everyone to benefit. To provide assistance to

residents with special financial needs, communities can reduce the

per-household waste collection charges by 

amount, offer a percentage discount, or pr

a credit on the overall bill. In some cases,

communities with unit pricing programs off

certain number of free bags or stickers to

low-income residents. Some communities

charge everyone equally for bags or tags bu

reduce the base service charge for low-in

households. Assistance also can be offere

through existing low-income programs,

particularly other utility assistance efforts

These techniques allow low-income

households to benefit from some assistance 

retaining the incentive to reduce their bill f

waste services by practicing source reduction, recycling, and

composting. Communities will need to determine how to identify th

amount of assistance they will offer based primarily on the program’s

anticipated revenues. As a basis for establishing eligibility for assistan

some communities with unit pricing programs use income criteria suc

federal poverty guidelines.

In some communities,

backyard collection can be

arranged as a service for

disabled or elderly residents.

30
Unlike bags, cans often work well with

semiautomated or automated

collection equipment (if cans are

chosen that are compatible with this

equipment).

If residents already own trash cans of

roughly uniform volume, new cans

might not be required.

Cans may be labeled with addresses to

assist in enforcement.

Cans prevent animals from scattering

the waste.

Customers have a limited incentive 

to reduce waste. Since residents are

usually charged on a subscription 

basis, there is no incentive not to fill

cans already purchased. In addition, 

no savings are possible below the

smallest size trash can.

Relatively complex billing systems are

needed to track residents’ selected

subscription level and bill accordingly.

Complex storage, inventory, and

distribution systems are required to

provide new cans to households that

change their subscription level.

A method of collecting and charging

for waste beyond subscription levels

and for bulk waste collections needs

to be established.

At the outset, residents may find it

difficult or confusing to select a

subscription level.

Nonautomated can collections tend

to require greater time and effort

than collecting waste in bags.

Anaheim, CA

King County, W

(in unincorpor

Marion Count

Pasadena, CA

Glendale, CA

Oakland, CA

Bellevue, WA

Santa Monica, 

Duluth, MN

Richmond, CA

Walnut Creek

Santa Clara, C

Auburn, WA

Hastings, MN

DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRA
Bag systems might offer a stronger

waste reduction incentive than can

systems because fees typically are

based on smaller increments of waste.

Accounting costs are lower than with

can systems, since no billing system is

needed.

Bag systems have lower distribution,

storage, and inventory costs than can

systems when bags are sold at local

retail establishments and municipal

offices.

Bag collections tend to be faster and

more efficient than nonautomated 

can collections.

Bags can be used to indicate that the

proper fees have been paid for bulky

items or white goods, since fees for

pickup of these items (above the

subscription level) often are assessed

by communities. Communities can 

ask residents to attach a certain

number of bags to the items according

to the cost of disposal (for example,

two bags for a couch and three bags

for a washing machine).

can fluctuate significantly.

If bags are sold in municipal offices,

extra staff time be will need to be

committed.

Residents might view a requirement

to buy and store bags as an

inconvenience.

Bags are more expensive than tags

or stickers.

Bags often are incompatible with

automated or semiautomated

collection equipment.

Animals can tear bags and scatter

trash, or bags can tear during lifting.

Unlike cans, bags are not reused,

adding to the amount of solid waste

entering the waste stream.

Lansing, MI

St. Cloud, MN

Darien, IL

Carlisle, PA

Quincy, IL

Oregon, WI

Fallbrook, CA

32
Residents often find tag or sticker

systems easier to understand.

These systems offer a stronger waste

reduction incentive than can systems

because fees are based on smaller

increments of waste.

Accounting costs are lower than with

can systems, since no billing system is

needed.

Selling tags or stickers at local retail

establishments and municipal offices

offers lower distribution, storage, and

inventory costs than can systems.

The cost of producing tags or stickers

for sale to residents is lower than for

bags.

Stickers can be used to indicate

payment for bulky items or white

goods, since fees for pickup of these

items (above the subscription level)

often are assessed by communities.

purchase can fluctuate significantly.

To avoid confusion among residents,

the municipality must establish and

clearly communicate the size limits

allowable for each sticker.

If tags or stickers are sold in municipal

offices, extra staff time will need to be

committed.

Residents might view a requirement

to buy and store stickers or tags as an

inconvenience.

Tags and stickers often do not adhere

in rainy or cold weather. 

Extra time might be needed at curb

for collectors to enforce size limits. In

addition, there may be no incentive for

strict enforcement if haulers are paid

based on the amount of waste collected.

Stickers left on trash at curbside could

be removed by vandals or by other

residents hoping to avoid paying for

waste services.

Tags and stickers are not as noticeable

as bags or other prepaid indicators.

Grand Rapids, 

Lansing, MI

DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRA
can assist you in designing and evaluating your preliminary rate structure. This

process should begin approximately six months before the start of your program. 

Performing the Six-Step Process...

As you are completing these steps, be sure to keep a few basic objectives in

mind:

Raise sufficient revenues to cover fixed costs and variable costs.

Possibly raise revenues beyond the cost of the program to cover other

waste management costs. These revenues might be used for antilittering campaigns or to discourage illegal dumping.

Send clear price signals to citizens to encourage waste reduction.

Charge appropriate fees to cover the costs of 1) recycling and other complementary programs, 2) providing services (such as backyard collection)

for physically limited or disabled people, and 3) any discount pricing provided to low-income households.

Compile accurate MSW baseline data to be used when evaluating your

unit pricing program.

Design a program simple enough to keep administrative costs low and to

make it easy for people to participate in the program, thereby reducing both

their waste generation and their waste collection bill. 

Also, don’t forget to consider your unit pricing goals, community-specific

conditions, and the most promising suggestions from municipalities with existing unit pricing programs to ensure a program tailored to the waste management needs and concerns of your community.

34
unit pricing program is fully established. This period is referred to as the “steady-state.

the steady-state, residents have accepted unit pricing and reduced their waste gener

rates accordingly, and the municipality’s waste management operations have adjuste

new, lower waste collection requirements. 

Ensuring that the revenues received under the unit pricing program will cover the

program’s costs is a critical factor for most communities. As a result, accurately

estimating the amount of waste collected in the steady-state is an important first ste

determining how much money unit pricing will actually generate. To develop such an

estimate, perform the following calculations:

➧ Current demand. Using your waste hauling records, estimate the amount of w

collected from residents last year.

➧ Community growth. Next, estimate the population growth trends and other

demographic patterns in your community. Use this information to estimate the dem

for waste management services over the next one or two years. This information 

be developed in several ways; the box entitled “Forecasting Community Growth Tre

on page 31 discusses some different approaches. (Note: If you are planning special

programs for low-income, elderly, or multi-family households, you should estimate t

population trends of these residents or households as well.)

➧ Impact of unit pricing. Then, estimate the likely impact (i.e., household

responsiveness) of unit pricing on this demand for waste services. Other communities w

unit pricing programs in place might be a good source of information on the degree of w

generation reduction to be expected. Some communities have achieved 25 to 45 perce

reductions in waste generation rates, depending on such factors as the use of compleme

programs, the design of the unit pricing rate structure, and the effectiveness of the pub

education effort. Be sure not to underestimate the potential success of your unit pricin

program, especially if strong public education and complementary programs are plann

Underestimating waste reduction will cause you to overestimate potential revenues.

TRADITIONAL

 SYSTEM Transition Period S T E A D Y- S T A T E

 Planning Implementation Program Monitoring

DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRA
2

STEP

Services: 

Determine the Components of Your Unit Pricing Progra

After clarifying your community’s goals and considering the pros and cons of the unit

pricing program options described earlier in this section of the guide, you will be ready t

determine the methods your solid waste agency will use to collect waste from residents and

other details of your unit pricing program, including: 

➧ Containers. After considering their practical implications, decide whether your unit

pricing program would be most effective using cans, bags, tags or stickers, or some type

of hybrid system. Determine the volume of the containers to be used.

➧ Service Options. While most unit pricing programs will include curbside collections,

decide whether your program would benefit from such additional services as backyard

collections and picking up bulky items such as white goods.

resources available.

For example, if your community is small and you expect no change in population trends, per

capita waste generation, and commercial or industrial growth, you could use a simple trend

analysis to forecast growth. Your estimation of current waste generation amounts might be base

on a waste characterization assessment, historical records from collection services and disposal

facilities, or estimates based on similar communities’ analyses. Extending these trends can

provide an estimate of future demand for solid waste services. If you base your estimates on

other communities’ analyses, be sure to choose communities that are similar to yours in size,

population, income distribution, urban/rural distribution, and economic base. In addition, using

the most recent analyses available will increase the accuracy of your estimation.

In contrast, if your community is large and you expect a change in current trends, you probably will

need to use a sophisticated forecasting equation that will account for all the variables you identify.

Your solid waste agency may have collected data on a number of factors that previously have

influenced the amount of waste generated by the community (such as housing construction, plant

closings, household income, economic growth, and age distribution of the population). You could

base projections of future demand for solid waste services by introducing these data into your

36
3

STEP

Costs: 

Estimate the Costs of Your Unit Pricing Program

Having determined the structure of your program and the services to include, list al

associated costs. Categories of costs can include:

➧ Start-up costs. Estimate the one-time costs your community will incur when

implementing the unit pricing program, such as training personnel, purchasing new

containers, and designing and implementing a new billing process.

➧ Ongoing costs. Estimate the costs your program will incur on an ongoing basis. 

costs include variable costs (such as landfill tipping fees) and more stable or fixed co

(including rent and utilities for agency offices and office supplies) that remain relativ

constant despite fluctuations in the amount of waste collected. Be sure to consider any 

costs from providing special services to certain groups. (Some communities might fin

useful to employ full cost accounting procedures to better understand the exact cos

the different projects planned as part of the unit pricing program.)

4

STEP

Rates: 

Develop a Tentative Unit Pricing Rate Structure

Having determined the components of your program, you can now set a tentative ra

structure. At this point, the rates should be considered merely rough estimates t

revised and refined in light of the overall revenues they will generate and how accep

the costs will be to residents. The rates you start with can be borrowed from the fig

used by neighboring unit pricing communities offering similar services or adapted fro

price ranges found nationally. As you work through the remaining steps in the process o

setting a rate structure, you can determine whether the rates are appropriate and make

adjustments accordingly. Be sure to specify any lower rates that you plan to make availa

some portions of your community (such as discounts for low-income households).

DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRA
month in the steady-state (estimated in Step 1) by the volume of containers, such as bag

or cans, you established in Step 2. This provides an estimate of the number of containers

of solid waste you expect to collect per month. Then multiply the estimated number of

containers by the unit charge you have tentatively established in Step 4. This yields an

estimate of the total revenues per month generated under unit pricing. 

Depending on the number of services offered and the unit pricing structure itself, these

calculations can be simple or complex! For example, communities using cans of varying

sizes and offering additional services (such as backyard waste collection) must estimate

the revenues produced by each component of their solid waste program. In addition, if

low-income households are subsidized under your program, be sure to calculate the size

of the subsidies and subtract from the expected revenues.

6

STEP

Balance:

Evaluate and Adjust Your Preliminary Unit Pricing Progra

For most communities, comparing the anticipated costs of their unit pricing program

(Step 3) against expected revenues (Step 5) will provide the critical indication of whethe

the program is viable. (It is important in this step to be able to rely on accurate baseline

data for gauging the viability of your program.) If this comparison indicates that the

costs of your unit pricing program might not be fully covered by its revenues, you need t

review both the design of the program (Step 2) and the rates you plan to charge (Step

4). Several revisions of program options and rate structures may be required to achieve

a unit pricing program that most closely meets the goals established by the

community in the planning phase (see Part II).

Once you feel that your program strikes a working balance between costs incurred for

services provided and the prices residents will be charged, it might be appropriate to

submit the program design to other municipal officials or community leaders for

additional input. This process of review and comment can continue until a balanced

program agreed upon by community representatives has been established.

38
Estimating waste generation rates. Community A

s records show that it collected

480,000 cubic yards of solid waste from its residents last year. Municipal officials rea

that the population of the town is likely to increase next year after a large multi-use

building complex is completed. Based on population projections prepared by town

planners, officials estimate that, at the current rate, residents will generate nearly

600,000 cubic yards of solid waste annually two years from now. Within this two-ye

period, however, officials hope their unit pricing program will have reached its

steady-state and residents will be generating less waste. Using data from three nearb

demographically similar towns that have established unit pricing programs, municipa

officials estimate that two years after implementation of the unit pricing program th

community will generate about 410,000 cubic yards of waste annually.

Establishing rates. At this stage in the design process, municipal officials in Commu

A decide to use the median rate of the prices charged by other communities across 

country ($1.75 per 30-gallon bag). In addition, this rate is very close to the price ad

by the three nearby unit pricing communities for their 30-gallon containers.

Calculating revenues. Dividing the annual amount of solid waste Community A exp

to generate in the steady-state (410,000 cubic yards) by the size of their waste cont

(30 gallons or 0.15 cubic yards) shows that the municipality can expect to collect ov

2,733,000 bags each year. By multiplying this figure by the price per bag ($1.75), of

calculated that Community A should receive about $4,780,000 in revenues from its 

pricing program each year.

Calculating costs. Community A estimates that the annual steady-state cost of its

program will include approximately $1,000,000 in fixed costs, such as public educ

efforts, computers and other office materials, and enforcement efforts, and

approximately $2,700,000 in tipping fees and other variable costs. Combining these

figures produces an annual steady-state cost of approximately $3,700,000 for the

program. Additional start-up expenses also would be incurred. 

Comparing costs and revenues. While recognizing that their program must cover t

town’s waste management costs completely, officials in Community A agreed the tow

should cover any start-up costs that exceeded revenues during the initial transition peri

Therefore, when a comparison of the expected revenues against the costs of the un

pricing program showed that the program would generate excess revenues, municipa

officials decided to lower the price charged per bag to $1.35. This new price would yie

projected $3,690,000 annually, closer to the town’s actual costs of maintaining the pro

DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRA
the demand for services in STEP 1, communities can plan for th

services they will offer in STEP 2. Some communities will want 

offer services such as backyard collections, comprehensive

recycling programs, and assistance to residents with special nee

Bear in mind, however, that while these projects can help prom

source reduction and increase citizen enthusiasm, they also can

increase the cost of your program significantly. Use STEP 3 to 

estimate the costs of the services you are planning to offer.

Revenues

The flip side of costs is revenues. Unit pricing

allows communities to generate the revenues

needed to pay for solid waste management serv

under the new program. In fact, when developin

rate structure in STEP 4 and calculating the

resulting revenues in STEP 5, communities migh

decide to set prices at a level above the cost of

their unit pricing program. This would further

encourage source reduction among residents an

ensure that revenues could cover any shortfalls.

Since residents will only support a program they

feel charges a fair price for solid waste services,

however, there are limits to this strategy.

Balance

To be successful over the long term, your unit

pricing program will need to carefully balance the

services you want to include against the revenues

that residents provide. The exact formula will

depend upon local conditions. Use STEP 6 to

help you compare the costs of your planned

program against anticipated revenues. Keep

revising your rate structure until you feel that you

have a program that offers the services you need

at a price residents can support.

40
10-gallon can and Victoria, British Columbia, uses a 22-gallon can as the base

service level. A number of communities using large containers (such as

60-gallon cans) are f inding that these containers are too large to offer

customers meaningful incentives, but purchasing and delivering new, smaller

cans later in the program is very expensive. In the short run, a broader range

of service can be provided by using several smaller cans. This also helps keep

the system f lexible for future changes. 

What pricing rates are communities charging?

For bag systems in the Midwest and Pennsylvania, communities charge about

$1 to $2 per 30-gallon bag. For variable can programs in the Northwest and

California, towns charge $9 to $15 for the f irst level of service (20 to 40

gallons), with charges for additional cans of service ranging from 30¢ to $15.

We have an existing variable rate can program. How can

we increase the incentive for waste reduction?

The key change to make is to base your billing on actual set-outs rather than

using a subscription approach. Offer smaller cans to encourage waste reduction,

and consider a bag-based system. Upgrading composting and recycling options

(including plastics collection, for example, if you don’t already) also will provide

an incentive for customers to reduce waste. Communities also universally state

that education is critical to helping customers understand and work with the

system. Finally, consider a weight-based program. You might f ind that the cost of

implementing this type of program is not prohibitive and that it can work in

tandem with your existing cans.

How can we improve source separation of recyclable

materials?

Some residents may tend to be sloppy about source separation regardless of

the type of solid waste pricing system. As people learn to reduce their costs by

recycling more, however, they may become more inclined to introduce

nonrecyclables in their recycling bins. Many communities have found the best

solution is a good education and enforcement program that creates a sense of

ownership among residents, supported by peer pressure against such

behavior. Some also impose a small charge for recyclable materials in their

rate structure design.

DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRAM 
Remember that container options, complementary programs, rate

structures, and billing systems are all interrelated. As you consider the

different options, keep in mind the need to cover costs, keep the system

simple and convenient, encourage waste reduction, and minimize

administrative burdens on your agency.

Tradeoffs must be considered as you make decisions about rate structures

and program options. Balance, for example, the need to generate

revenues against providing incentives for waste reduction.

Consider complementary programs, such as recycling and collection of

yard trimmings, to increase the effectiveness of unit pricing.

Consider how to ensure that unit pricing’s economic incentives to reduce waste

can be extended to residents of multi-family housing in your community.

Design your program to be flexible enough to allow for groups with 

special needs. Discount pricing or assistance programs might be

necessary to ensure that the program encourages waste reduction without

imposing physical or financial burdens on handicapped or low-income

members of your community.

Refer back to your unit pricing goals when making rate structure

decisions. While information from other communities with unit pricing

programs is helpful, your own community’s solid waste concerns should be

the overriding factor.

42
residents in general, we needed to design a program that keeps rates low and revenues

stable. To accomplish this, Seattle chose to adopt a two-tiered rate structure. The

mandatory base charge (called a minimum charge) is $5.85 a month. We also charge

$15 for each standard size (30-gallon) can per week. The Council pushed for this

structure, believing it would keep overall rates down and send a strong environmental

message to the community at the same time. There tends to be broad support for the

single price per can.

We also have introduced smaller can sizes. About 30 percent of our customers use minicans

(19-gallon capacity), which cost $11.50 per week, and we soon will be providing microcan

service (a 10-gallon container) for $9.35 per week. After talking with customers and

observing their waste disposal habits, we found a lot of customers could fit their waste into a

micro can. We expect about 10 percent of all customers to use the micro cans.

Complementary services. After electing to collect yard trimmings as part of our

program, we decided to set a flat fee of $3 per household per month for this service,

believing that a more complicated system would only make the program’s

administration prohibitively costly. We offer bulky item pick-up for $25 per item. The

price was set to cover hauling and administrative costs.

For waste that is generated above the subscription level, residents must attach a trash

tag, marketed through local retail outlets, to garbage bags. The trash tag system has

been one of our less successful programs, partly because customers just don’t know

about it. In addition, our haulers do not always enforce the tag system. Since they get

paid per ton of waste they pick up, they have no incentive to leave the waste at the

curb. We estimate we forfeit anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million dollars a year on

fees not paid on this additional waste.

Tags and Stickers

A View From Illinois

One of the major advantages of tags and stickers is that, since residents pay for them at

various outlets in the community, there is no billing at all. They also are applicable to different

types of services, containers, and waste, and they are easy to purchase and hold on to until

needed. Multiple tags or stickers can be used on bulky waste items, too.

Tags and stickers also are easy for collection personnel to use. Since every second they

spend at a stop costs money, the more data collection or enforcement that a community

DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED UNIT PRICING PROGRAM 
Experience With Weight-Based Systems

A View From Farmington, Minnesota, and Seattle, Washingt

In Farmington, Minnesota, we worked for two years to develop and implemen

weight-based unit pricing program for our town of 5,000 residents. Our new syste

uses fully automated trucks that require just one person per truck to hoist and we

the garbage can. The truck’s weighing system reads a bar code on the can that

identifies the resident’s name and address. The truck then empties the can and th

information is fed automatically into the billing system through an onboard compu

This provides a reliable system for charging residents for waste collection by weigh

One issue we have to resolve is establishing an appropriate regulation for the weig

mechanism used in our system. After Minnesota’s Weights and Measures Agency

decided it did not have the authority to verify the scales on the trucks, the state

legislature adopted standardized weight and measure legislation establishing regula

covering weighing equipment for garbage collection trucks. One issue that remains

however, is that the degree of calibration required is too precise (the same as that 

grocery store scales). We are now in the process of petitioning for changes to mak

the regulation more consistent with practical needs.

In Seattle, Washington, we tested two different weight-based systems: a

hand-dumped weight-based system and a semi-automated weight-based system. Th

hand dump system, designed around a “hook scale” and a bar code, was tested ov

the course of three months. The collector hung the can on the hook and used a

scanner on the bar code. The weight and number were recorded in a portable

calculator-sized computer and downloaded to a personal computer for calculating 

mailing mock bills to customers. The second system we tested during a six-week t

used a retrofitted semiautomated tipping arm and a radio-frequency tag. The weig

and customer identification number were automatically recorded during the dump

cycle. Both approaches worked extremely well. The first system took about 10 perce

longer for collection; the second system operated exactly as the standard semiautoma

variable can system and took no extra time. Surveys of customers participating in the

hand-dump system trial showed that it was very popular. Participating residents reduc

waste 15 percent by weight over the course of the testing.

In our research, we found that with the weight-based system, there are advantage

customers buying their own containers. The cost is lower and, if the garbage is

hand-dumped, you do not need standardized containers. Under a semiautomated

system, however, you might have to require customers to buy specific containers.

44
g

Having carefully planned and designed a unit pricing

program that best ref lects the needs and concerns of

your community, you can now get started.

Implementing a unit pricing program is an ongoing

process, requiring persistent attention to a wide range of

details. This part of the guide focuses on the central issues

concerning unit pricing implementation, including public

education, accounting, and administrative changes. Suggestions

also are included for collecting data and monitoring the

program once it is in place.

There are two distinct schools of thought about the timing of

unit pricing implementation. One maintains that unit pricing

should be implemented within a specif ied time frame and that

rate adjustments, complementary programs such as recycling,

and any other changes be made all at once. The other believes

that households respond better when they are asked to make

changes in small, manageable increments over time. 

The f inal decision about which path to follow is a local one

based on the views of your agency, the local government,

community organizations, and the households themselves. In

most towns, residents will prefer to modify their habits as

infrequently as possible. In this case, it might be easiest to

implement a package of changes all at once, rather than ask

for a series of adjustments six months apart. 

IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING 
below.) Other common tasks include:

Establishing legal authority. Generally, to implement a unit

pricing program, your solid waste agency needs the authority to 

and approve waste collection rates and bill accordingly, establis

ordinance mandating the use of the waste collection service, est

penalties for illegal dumping, and spend solid waste agency fun

activities beyond those associated with traditional solid waste

management services (for example, public education). If your

community lacks the authority to implement and enforce any po

of the unit pricing program, the first step will be to draft the

necessary ordinances in consultation with your legal counsel.

Procuring containers. You also will need to purchase the

necessary waste containers, bags, tags, or stickers for the program

Once the size and design specifications are established, you can 

vendors for the required materials. In some cases, a request for

proposal (RFP) might be placed to solicit competing bids from s

vendors. This can help you procure the necessary materials at th

least cost to your agency. After a vendor is selected and an order

placed, storage and distribution plans will be needed. In particu

communities planning to use local retailers to distribute bags, ta

stickers should identify and negotiate with local merchants to ar

at a mutually beneficial arrangement. Communities developing a

can-based system will need to inform residents of the can option

have residents select the number and size of cans they will use (

variable can system is used), and distribute the cans to all reside

Assisting groups with special needs. If your community is

planning to assist residents with special needs, such as multi-fam

low-income, physically handicapped, or elderly residents, you w

need to develop a list of qualification criteria. In addition, you m

need to devise special applications and train staff to review case

Procedures should be established for resolving any disputes or

complaints that could occur during the review process. If you ar

planning to include multi-family residents in your program, con

planning and conducting a pilot program before you switch to u

pricing. In this way, different systems and technologies can be te

prior to launching the actual program.

46
yg y

contracting with buyers.

Ensuring enforcement. Enforcement procedures

could be established to address the possibility of

illegal dumping or burning of waste, “borrowing” of

tags or stickers from neighbors’ bags, or nonpayment

of fees. If necessary, enforcement staff can be hired and

procedures developed for investigating incidents. In

many cases, these inspectors will need to receive training,

equipment, and facilities. Establishing special collections for certain

wastes (such as bulky items or materials such as paints, pesticides, and

other items considered household hazardous waste), combined with

fines for violations, can help prevent illegal dumping or burning. Also,

to help instill an environmental ethic in the community which can

further reduce the potential for illegal dumping, consider establishing

regular citizen cleanups, “adopt-a-highway” projects, and other

programs that will gather residents together and focus their interest on

maintaining and improving their community.

Public Education and Outr

As discussed in Part II, public outreach during the planning and

design stages enables decision-makers to learn more about residents’

waste management needs, to inform them of the benefits of unit pricing,

to solicit input on the goals of a unit pricing program, and to get

feedback on a tentative rate structure. Such efforts are essential for

building support among residents for unit pricing. 

During the implementation phase, the public outreach program should

have two goals: 1) to build on earlier efforts to increase public acceptance of

unit pricing and 2) to provide residents with the detailed information they

need to understand and participate in the new program. Participants at

EPA’s Unit Pricing Roundtable agreed that well-informed residents are

easier to serve and more likely to be satisfied with the new program.

Building public support and providing program specifics typically begins

approximately three months before program implementation. These

activities are often continued in varying degrees throughout the program.

BARRIERS

EDUCATIO

To e

t

n

care

re

IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING 
stickers.

• The penalties for noncompliance.

When imparting this information to the community, make sure th

all instructions are clear and simple. Expl

any unit 

pricing concepts that residents might n

understand. If you are producing writt

materials, consider translating the text 

more than one language, depending on 

makeup of your community. Use

illustrations whenever possible to conv

key concepts. Sometimes local copying s

or printers will donate their services to h

produce these materials.

Also, be sure to discuss the waste

management goals for the community and

show how the new unit pricing program w

help meet those goals. If you had organize

citizens advisory council or an informal

gathering of community or civic groups to

help you with public outreach during the

planning stage, you might reconvene this

group to plan your implementation outrea

efforts. Such a group can help you develop an effective message and

ensure that you reach all segments of the community. 

Offer citizens information on how to alter their purchasing and

behavior patterns to prevent and reduce waste. Tips on waste preven

options, such as reusing containers, renting seldom-used equipment

donating unwanted items, are useful. Encouraging residents to purch

recyclable items and goods with recycled content also is important. 

addition, the message is likely to have a greater impact if informatio

additional benefits, such as saving energy and preserving natural

resources, is provided. If residents make the program’s goals their go

too, they are more likely to make long-term behavioral changes.

As part of its public outreach

program, Seattle’s Solid Waste

Utility is conveying important

information about unit pricing

using a series of engaging

pamphlets.

48
ppy

stores will be especially valuable if your program uses bags, tags, or

stickers that are distributed though retail outlets. You can leave

flyers, posters, newsletters, and other materials with these stores,

and ensure that the retailers themselves are familiar with the

program. 

• Producing newsletters that discuss the need for the program, answer

questions, and provide updates about the program’s progress.

• Establishing a telephone hotline to provide residents with

immediate answers to their questions. 

Drafting press releases and developing media spots for radio or cable

television. Through the media, you can reach a broad range of residents.

Additional outreach techniques can be employed based on your

community’s particular conditions. For example, if you feel that a

specific group of residents, such as senior citizens, are not receiving

enough information to participate effectively, you might consider

reaching out to senior centers, local churches, and other institutions to

ensure that everyone is familiar with unit pricing.

Some solid waste agencies opt to conduct public education

campaigns using existing inhouse staff. Others hire one or more qualified

individuals to conduct these activities or pay outside consultants to

perform public outreach. This decision is typically based on the size of

your community, the scope of your program, and the available resources.

Keep in mind that public outreach is an ongoing process. A

consistent flow of information, designed to answer questions, receive

input, and communicate any changes made to the program after it has

been implemented, will help maintain interest in the program. In

addition, an ongoing campaign can continue to inform and educate

citizens about new ways to prevent or reduce waste.

IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING 
overtime work from existing employees. Other programs, however, c

require new administrative and accounting systems and staff to han

the changes in billing, tracking costs and revenues, managing opera

and maintaining customer relations. In some cases, larger communi

planning more complicated unit pricing systems have found it

worthwhile to hire analytical, financial, and customer service staff t

handle both the transition and ongoing requirements of the program

While the process of reorganizing an administrative system for a 

unit pricing program can seem daunting, performing the switch as a

series of steps with clear objectives in mind will help make the proc

manageable. Generally, communities with unit pricing programs hav

found that the process of reorganizing the administrative office shou

take place between three and six months before the start of the prog

The first step is to define the new responsibilities the administr

office must assume once the program has reached its steady state, as

described in Part III. Consider all the functions, such as public relation

customer service, economic analysis, financial management and track

and enforcement, that the office will need to perform. With steady-stat

the goal, try to create a new office that matches these needs rather than

accommodate your goals to the skills that are available. After establish

Getting Your New Administrative Off ice On Line

The keys to transforming your solid waste agency’s administration i

an efficient team capable of handling its new responsibilities are:

Anticipating the level of expertise that will be necessary, both during 

gram implementation and ongoing operation.

Giving funding priority to areas that hold the greatest opportunity fo

ings or pose the greatest risk of financial problems.

Meeting temporary needs during the transition with temporary help,

rather than locking into a level of employment that proves excessive i

long run.

50
and management of these price signals. Managing these new functions

requires the office to have access to a range of skills, including: 

Economics. Developing the unit pricing rate structure and related

forecasts of revenues, costs, and total community use of waste

collection, recycling, and composting programs.

Public relations. Developing outreach and education activities and

managing customer service representatives. This function includes

interaction with the general public, as well as local interest groups,

elected officials, and the news media.

Financial and logistical management. Billing households or

collecting revenues from the sale of bags, tags, or stickers; developing

debt management strategies; managing cash reserves; and developing

a distribution system for the program’s cans, bags, tags, or stickers.

Enforcement. Ensuring that households pay for the level of solid

waste services they receive.

In addition, several important suggestions were offered during EPA’s

Unit Pricing Roundtable for organizing your administrative office’s

financial operations. Be sure to establish access to a cash reserve to help the

office cover periods of unanticipated revenue reductions. Repeated

instances of revenue shortfalls, however, could signal an imbalance

between the services offered and your program’s rate structure. 

Preparing existing administrative staff for the changes that will result

from the switch to unit pricing is another important step. While the change

initially might not be viewed positively by all employees, conveying the

positive aspects of the switch might help ease concerns. In addition to the

reorientation of the office away from traditional collection and disposal

services to a new emphasis on waste prevention, recycling, and

composting, employees should be informed of the opportunities for staff

training and development in new areas, such as public relations and

customer service, that the new program will create.

Furthermore, when organizing the new office, communities should be

aware that expanding the administrative office requires a delicate

balancing of resources: while allocating too much funding to the office

could cut into the savings that unit pricing programs offer, underfunding

the office can result in inefficiencies and poor revenue recovery. This is

TRADEOF

HIERARCH

COSTS

IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING 
implementing a unit pricing program into a clear schedule is an ess

step for most communities. While the exact schedule of steps shoul

viewed as flexible, establishing an overview of the entire process w

help eliminate the possibility of any serious omissions. Table 4-1

presents a detailed timeline for your reference. (The dates listed on 

timeline represent the number of months before or after program

implementation each step should be initiated. Program implementa

is defined as the date on which actual service changes begin.)

While the dates have been established based on the experiences 

number of communities with unit pricing programs in place, local

conditions and needs will inevitably affect the exact timing of your

program’s development. Many factors affect how you adapt this tim

to your community’s needs, including equipment changes, contractu

changes, financing requirements, and employment, as well as politi

factors (such as the nature and structure of the local political proces

the potential existence of a perceived solid waste crisis). In most ca

the level of political support is the most important variable, routine

cited by communities as responsible for either significant delays or 

progress in the implementation of their unit pricing programs. Most 

the remaining steps can be conducted fairly routinely in 3 to 12 mo

depending on system choices, size of the community, and types of s

waste collection and administration systems in place.

Program Monitoring and Evaluation

As solid waste management has grown more challenging in rece

years, local officials are finding that they have greater freedom to

develop and implement new systems for managing waste. At the sam

time, however, their efforts also are subject to a higher level of scrut

Within the context of tightening municipal budgets and increasing

demands for city services of all types, local officials must be able t

discuss budget needs and priorities in a compelling way, using reli

data to support their case. Specifically, a thorough process of colle

and analyzing data about the performance of the unit pricing program 

52
• Allow planners to accurately compare the

performance of any complementary

programs, enabling them to reallocate

resources among the programs to increase

the overall effectiveness of unit pricing.

• Generate concrete, understandable, and

accurate information that can help other

communities considering unit pricing.

Moreover, this data will enable solid waste agency planners to adjust

the unit pricing program to unforeseen circumstances, ensuring that the

effort and attention paid to planning, designing, and implementing the

program will not be wasted. Typically, program monitoring and evaluation

begins about six months before the date of unit pricing implementation,

when information on the old waste management system is gathered. These

data will act as a benchmark against which the progress of the unit pricing

program can be measured. Monitoring and evaluation begins as soon as the

new program is launched and continues throughout the program.

Data collection is the first step in program monitoring and

evaluation. While the exact types of data a community collects will vary

from one area to another, most municipalities track:

• Changes in the community’s waste generation rate

• Costs incurred, both in starting up and in operating the new program

• Revenues received under the program

Communities often begin by collecting data on the amount of waste

disposed of, recycled, and composted before and after the program’s

implementation. Estimates of the amount of material illegally dumped can

be calculated as well. To allow for a more comprehensive analysis, the

waste generation rates can be tracked by month and year, and, if possible,

by origin and destination. In addition, the data can be further broken down

by facility, customer group (such as residential, multi-family, commercial,

or industrial), and program (for example, drop-off versus curbside services).

To gain a more accurate picture of the impact of their program, some

communities also estimate the amount of waste that would have been

generated in the absence of the unit pricing program.

The specific costs that a community might want to research include

disposal costs and tipping fees; new administrative costs, including public

Collecting and analy

data will help the sol

adjust its prog

IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING 
separate transition and startup expenses from the ongoing operation

costs of unit pricing. If possible, initial capital costs should be alloc

over time and across programs. Collecting data on the revenues resu

from unit pricing tends to be simpler. Communities typically track

revenues by type of program and customer category.

To closely track a new unit pricing program, communities also m

want to develop data on the number of subscribers or participants,

broken down into type of service and program; the service and

subscription levels (if a variable can program is used); the inventori

bags or tags held by distributors or manufacturers; the weight of

containers set out (if possible, through surveys); and the numbers of

phone calls and letters and the issues raised.

Program evaluation can yield misleading results, however. To he

avoid some common data collection and evaluation mistakes, panel

EPA’s Unit Pricing Roundtable recommended avoiding focusing on

participation rates as a measure of success. While a study of

participation levels can help guide program modifications, they are 

useful for gauging overall progress since they do not address cost is

and tend not to distinguish between casual and committed participa

Likewise, panelists recommended that communities also consider fa

beyond overall waste reduction when evaluating a program. For

example, intangible issues, such as dissatisfaction with the program

among residents of multi-family buildings, would not be reflected in 

analysis that focused exclusively on waste reduction numbers.

Tips for Data Collection and Program Monitoring

Get data from several different angles if possible (for example, waste qua

tity generation rates for both collection services and disposal facilities).

Don’t simply accept the numbers as they are generated. Consider the 

possibility that factors such as underlying shifts in categories, definitio

or reporting might affect the accuracy of the results.

Be sure to carefully track costs. Without accurate and attributable da

the impact of your cost-effectiveness evaluation will be reduced.

54
Brief management and elected officials X

Conduct focus groups on rate program design

and issues

X X

Develop information materials for council and press X

Hold council hearings and public hearings X

Public relations/education

Issue RFP for public relations firm, if needed X

Design educational materials, bill stuffers X

Review/refine educational materials X 

Produce educational materials X 

Distribute educational materials X 

Customer service staff

Request customer service representative (CSR)

computers and workspace, if needed

X

Advertise for CSRs X

Obtain and install CSR computer equipment X

Hire and train CSRs X

Release temporary CSRs X

Planning and Analysis

Hire rates analyst (part- or full-time) X

Determine rate setting procedure and calculate rates X

Refine rate structure X 

IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING 
g, g, 

Set specifications for sticker or bag and design logo X

Issue RFP for sticker or bag manufacture X

Select manufacturer X

Negotiate with retail outlets for sticker or 

bag distribution

X

Finalize sticker or bag distribution plans X

Begin selling stickers or bags in stores X

Design error tags X

Cans

Issue RFP for can purchase and distribution X

Decide on can size and purchase containers X

Have residents select can size X

Distribute cans X

Replace lost, stolen, or wrong-sized cans X X

Enforcement

Establish preliminary enforcement procedures X

Request equipment and facilities for inspectors X

Finalize enforcement procedures X

Train inspectors X X

Release temporary inspectors X

Special Groups

Negotiate with welfare agencies X

Develop exemption/discount criteria X

Determine responsible office X

Create procedures for qualification, disputes, etc. X

Finalize criteria and procedures X

Train inspectors or qualifiers X

Conduct qualifications X

56
Evaluate multi-family pilot options X

Conduct pilot program, if appropriate X X

Changes to Other Programs

Determine which complementary services to offer X

Decide funding source for new and existing 

complementary programs

X

Modify unit pricing program to cover these costs,

if necessary

X

Modify diversion program contracts and 

procedures as necessary

Ordinances

Draft final ordinances for new program X

Draft ordinances, as necessary, for illegal dumping

and burning, recycling, and special collections

X

Enact ordinances X

Data Collection

Analyze information needs and design reporting

procedures

X

Finalize procedures X

Conduct baseline data collection X 

Begin postimplementation data collection X 

Conduct data analysis and program modification X 

IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING 
than once is not rude or insultingits a courtesy to people who would like to

participate but have other things on their minds. Also, because unit pricing

requires that residents pay attention to details such as labeling waste contai

with stickers or buying bags from the municipality, hearing the message seve

times increases the chance that all residents will get the information they ne

Does unit pricing require us to completely reinvent our s

waste agency?

It does require a signif icant review of your agency’s goals and structure. But 

examination of new needs and existing employees could lead to the discover

some previously untapped skills in your agency.

Do I really need to follow this detailed timeline? Half the

items in it are not likely to come up in our community.

Select what you need from the timeline. The timeline lists the many possible 

of new activities that a unit pricing program could require. It is designed to h

solid waste off icials think about specif ic activities, thereby supplementing th

broad concepts that are stressed elsewhere in this guide.

Our municipality is on a tight budget. Do we really need 

spend money on data collection and monitoring?

While many of your unit pricing decisions face budgetary constraints, data

collection is essential for planning and for ensuring cost-effectiveness. The ri

kind of information can show which types of unit pricing program and rate

modif ications can best meet the community’s needs over time.

58
Be sure your public education campaign uses a consistent,

simple message that clearly communicates the goals of the

unit pricing program.

To ease the administrative transition, clearly define the

responsibilities of the office, the level of expertise that will be

necessary, and any new staff that need to be brought on.

Give funding priority to areas that hold the greatest risk of

financial problems or hold the greatest opportunity for savings

through effective management of limited administrative budgets.

Establish a flexible schedule for your unit pricing program that

reflects the political, technical, and economic concerns and issues

in your community.

Be sure to evaluate your program’s progress periodically, including

collecting and analyzing data on waste generation rates, costs and

revenues, and the attitude of residents toward the program.

To improve your data collection, make providing numbers part

of the contract (or franchise or license agreement) with your

haulers. Ask for monthly reporting, and provide forms and

definitions to ensure you receive the information you require.

IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING 
respond to stated attitudes. To give our new unit pricing program a good ch

of success, we realized a strong public outreach program was needed. Since 

pricing terms such as “variable rates” and “volume-based pricing” are not p

larly user-friendly, our first challenge was to come up with a name that wou

vey the nature of the new program to city council members, customers, an

own solid waste service workers. The name we came up with was “Pay-as-Y

Throw,” which has economic as well as environmental appeal.

Then, we initiated a pilot program beginning with a three-phase marketing plan 

reach out to the 3,000 participating single-family households. In the first phase

Preimplementation Phase, we worked very hard to sell the program in the com

nity. We lined up support from interest groups, asked city council members to 

about the program, and encouraged the media to write positive editorials.

During the second phase, the Implementation Phase, we had a more specif

lenge. We have had curbside recycling in Austin since 1982 and good experi

with recycling behavior. With a well-established recycling program, however

when we brought the program to the pilot households, people were asking 

do we need to do this when we’re already recycling?” Our biggest challeng

to inform people about the need to further reduce waste and encourage th

use our unit pricing program in conjunction with recycling. After implement

we learned from both attitudinal surveys and from direct observation of rec

bins that recycling had increased from 50 to 80 percent in some neighborho

when unit pricing was introduced.

The third phase of our public outreach program was the Maintenance Phase

Once the program was in place, we realized it was important to continue tr

to raise awareness. It was during this phase that we introduced what becam

single best educational tool—a brief, colorful newsletter included with each 

bage bill. Called “Waste Watch,” the newsletter contains features on the ga

collectors, dates of the brush/bulk pickup in each neighborhood, discussion

about our unit pricing goals, and other features. We knew that only 15 to 2

cent of our customers read the usual utility inserts. However, after we prov

more sophisticated information in an appealing format, our survey results s

a rise in readership.

60
g py

increases in administrative needs during implementation of a new or revised unit

pricing program is typical of many smaller communities.

Administration Staffing 

A View From Seattle, Washington

The Seattle Solid Waste Utility, an enterprise fund, operates a variable can subscription system with recycling fees and other charges embedded in the collection

rates. Billing is performed in cooperation with the Seattle Water Department at a

cost to the Seattle Solid Waste Utility of $1.9 million per year.

To manage this program, the utility employs two rate-setting staff, four finance

staff, and three accountants. Another $15,000 to $20,000 per year is spent on

consulting services, mostly to assist with setting rates. Additionally, Seattle’s 22

full-time customer service representatives and 9 refuse inspectors help to meet

the service and enforcement needs of the new program.

IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING UNIT PRICING 
Questions & Alternatives

This appendix presents a selection of proceedings from

EPA’s Unit Pricing Roundtable, held in December 1992.

These proceedings include descriptions of different

programs from around the country, experiences of solid

waste officials who have spearheaded unit pricing programs, and

ideas on managing program costs and challenges. The discussions

provided in this appendix are organized around a number of

specific questions and are divided into four general sections:

 • Getting started

 • Exploring program options, issues, and experiences

 • Integrating unit pricing and complementary programs

 • Accommodating groups with special needs

The first section explores issues involved in starting a unit pricing

program, such as education, communication, and changing the

status quo. The second section compares the essential components

of a unit pricing program, including container choices, pricing

models, and billing systems. It then moves on to financial issues,

including cash flow and enterprise funds, and discusses enforcement

issues. The third section focuses on integrating unit pricing and

complementary programs, such as yard trimmings and household

hazardous waste collection programs. The last section shares some

of the Roundtable proceedings on accommodating groups with

special needs, such as senior citizens, large families, and

low-income households.

 APPENDICES 
Seattle, WA: I think getting some good public support by working on it early is very importa

Contact not only recycling groups but also community councils, people whom y

might not expect to be big advocates of a unit pricing program. 

State of IL: The public opposition question comes up for communities that currently pay fo

garbage collection out of general taxes (e.g., property taxes). In a sense, that’s 

den cost, and people perceive garbage collection as a free service. But if they 

monthly bill (instead of paying through property taxes, for example), they know 

garbage collection costs something and there’s “no free lunch.” Then, in mov

a unit pricing program, they can actually see that the cost of garbage collec

comes down. Whereas if the costs are hidden as property tax or gene

Unit Pricing Roundtable Participants

The EPA-sponsored Unit Pricing Roundtable was moderated by Jan Canterbury of the EPA Office

of Solid Waste and attended by over a dozen individuals who have been involved in successful unit

pricing programs. The participants included:

Nancy Lee Newell of the City of Durham, North Carolina

Peggy Douglas of the City of Knoxville, Tennessee

Barbara Cathey of the City of Pasadena, California

Bill Dunn of the Minnesota Office of Waste Management

Nick Pealy of the Seattle Solid Waste Utility, Washington

Jody Harris of the Maine Waste Management Agency

Jamy Poth of the City of Austin, Texas

Jeanne Becker of Becker Associates, Illinois

Lisa Skumatz and Cabell Breckinridge of Synergic Resources Corporation (SRC)

Lon Hultgren of the Town of Mansfield, Connecticut

Greg Harder of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources

Thomas Kusterer of the Montgomery County Government, Maryland

Robert Arner of the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission

64
politicians supporting unit pricing are going with the tide rather than bucking 

Citizen Education

Did you use ad hoc citizen advisory groups, focus groups, surveys, and things of 

before you got started? 

Austin, TX: Yes, in fact, the way we introduced the program (this takes a lot of leg w

extremely important) is that we contacted neighborhood and civic associa

well as our recycling block leaders. Just coming up with the list of associa

task. We produced an eight-minute video on unit pricing and played the v

neighborhood meetings. We had real people talking about what was abou

pen. We got a lot of feedback by showing that tape. We carried out two f

surveys, including one on larger families, an issue that many people want 

more about. We experimented with soliciting feedback that was recorded 

phone voice mail system. This is effective because, believe it or not, peop

that hesitant to record their views. It is also cost-effective, since we use th

answering tree for our other programs as well. The voice mail is a call-aut

tem, so the caller presses “7” to f ind out when our brush pick up date is 

f ind out how to exchange carts. Many of the questions asked are just tha

you review your communications and outreach system, it makes sense to 

voice mail. 

Costs of Public Education

How much money was budgeted for unit pricing education? Also, in developing your 

efforts in-house, how many staff members did you devote to education and public re

Austin, TX: Our educational costs ranged from $6 to $8 per household per year in th

years. Most of those costs were start-up costs. We saved a lot of money b

of our work in-house—designing a user-friendly name and a regular way o

cating in our pilot program. However, this in-house approach meant that 

strained from using mass media such as TV and radio. We did not have th

to develop a TV commercial that said, “Here is how you participate in the 

gram.” I really doubt that many communities phasing in their unit pricing 

will f ind a mass media program useful because unit pricing can requir

plex explanation. Instead, we use mass media only with our generic recy

 APPENDICES 
can reduce your costs even further. Postage is very expensive, so if you can tag 

age for the unit pricing message along with something else, it’s even cheaper.

Pasadena, CA: I’d like to emphasize that it is absolutely key to put yourself on the f iring line w

customers. They pay the fees. When we went to the community we assured the

“We’re not taking anything away from you. We are giving you the opportunity 

have more control over your costs. You cut your trash down, you cut your trash 

down.” You need to listen, take the abuse, but then once the people actually e

ence the program, they become converts, they don’t want to go back. Either yo

the time up front to educate, or you take it later with operational diff iculties o

the program is underway. 

Getting Ready for Unit Pricing

What about communities that don’t have unit pricing now? 

Knoxville, TN: My fear is that a lot of what’s being discussed here may be diff icult to apply to 

cities in the South. In Tennessee, for example, we did a needs assessment of all 

counties, and we found, f irst of all, that the waste composition was very differe

from the rest of the country. Only about 25 percent to 35 percent of the total 

stream was residential. Also, there is no city-wide curbside recycling, very little 

trimmings recycling, no household hazardous waste collection, and only one reg

materials recovery facility. In addition, our landf ill tipping fees average only ab

$25/ton even though we have adopted Subtitle D landf ill regulations. Our land 

are just a whole lot less than other areas of the country, for now at least. I don

think Tennessee is a lot different than most states in the South. 

EPA: I’m glad that you raised that because one of the goals of the guide is to provide 

mation for communities that may not yet be at the jumping off point for imple

ing unit pricing. Any comments?

Pasadena, CA: What do you mean they are not ready? What’s your objective? 

Knoxville, TN: Well, to answer the f irst part of your question, in our needs assessment study, 

found that a third of the counties in Tennessee didn’t even have collection s

period. So it’s hard to talk about unit pricing or recycling. And one of the main 

sons why I wanted to go to unit pricing was to be able to f inance some of the e

municipal solid waste programs. I can’t do it right now, because every time 

66
and a lot of people are looking at all the complementary programs. We a

give people as many options as possible (e.g., curbside recycling and garb

tion once a week, yard trimmings collection, a yard trimmings composting 

and a bulky item pick-up). Anything other than sending it to a landf ill. Ou

going to close, and our county hasn’t been able to site another, so we’re 

shipping our waste out of the county. So we have a real big incentive to m

dispose of as little as possible. When you do have a crisis situation, and y

islation that’s pushing you in that direction on a state level, it can push yo

cutting edge of things, so it could be that you need to knock on your state 

ture’s door.

Program Options, Issues, and Experiences

Voluntary Versus Mandatory Programs 

What are some of the advantages of voluntary programs?

Northern VA: There are communities like Plantation, Florida, that have voluntary unit p

tary programs are more compatible with ideals of personal freedom, and 

ment costs may be lower. On the other hand, there may be less participa

voluntary programs. A certain amount of good will is associated with man

grams, since everyone has to participate. Mandatory programs also provi

ability to cover f ixed costs and less of an incentive for illegal dumping. If y

pay for at least some municipal solid waste service, then you may be less 

dump your waste.

Time Factors

Does it take less time for your crews to go down the street and get their work d

the unit-based program?

Austin, TX: Yes. We went from manual collection to semiautomated and estimate t

lection cost savings will be $5.11 per household per year. And we also 

three collectors to two collectors. That might not sound like much on a

household basis, but certainly there is a cost savings. Then, we pro

 APPENDICES 
What is the largest city with a bag program in Pennsylvania?

State of PA: Probably the largest city in Pennsylvania that has a bag system is Allentown, bu

has a limited per-bag system that is only used for grass clippings. Reading has a 

lation of 78,000, but it has a voluntary system in which haulers are required to 

a variable rate option. Wilkes-Barre has a population of around 48,500, but 

program applies only to residents of apartment buildings. The largest mandato

bag system is probably Carlisle, which has a population of around 20,000. Car

followed by South White Hall Township, with a population of around 18,000. M

per-bag systems in Pennsylvania use standard size 30-gallon trash bags. And us

they put a weight limit of around 40 pounds on the bags so you can’t f ill them 

with bricks. 

Stickers

How are stickers working out in your unit pricing program?

State of IL: The advantage of stickers is that there is no billing at all. They’re applicable to 

ous types of service, types of containers, and types of waste. With a simple, un

schedule, stickers could be ordered through the mail. Or somebody could buy 5

ers at a time from a hauler or from the local grocery store. The stickers are ea

keep and they are not going to rot. Often times, the haulers can’t read and wr

and so stickers are very simple. Since every second they spend at a stop is mon

them, the more data collection or enforcement that you require haulers per sto

less likely they are to do it. It’s a time limit. But stickers are not perfect. The a

sive can be a problem. The hauler might not be able to f ind them. Stickers c

stolen off of someone else’s garbage bag. And maybe the biggest problem is th

ple could buy a year’s worth of bags in January, and then not buy anymore for 

next several months. It is really hard to have to predict people’s behavior in or

forecast revenue. The largest community in Illinois that has a sticker program is 

City of Aurora, which has 100,000 people. 

Durham, NC: Stickers are interesting because you can take a big bag that you got at the stor

put your garbage in it and put a sticker on it. Then you are reusing that bag an

generating another waste product.

68
py py

people in the neighboring township actually began clamoring for the same

they actually sued the township to give them a bag-based system instead o

rate system. People like unit pricing because they see it as being very fair 

equitable. 

SRC: A 30-percent impact on customer costs may be a threshold level at wh

begin responding to unit pricing. In contrast, I’ve seen some communities 

lon cans as the smallest size and then charge a quarter or a dollar for eac

30 or 60 gallons. That may be unit pricing in one sense, but it certainl

provide much of an incentive for people to source reduce. You can also us

simple model and then consider some scenarios that give you an idea of w

rates should be. You don’t have to have a massive rates model; there are 

ties working f ine with microcomputer spreadsheets.

Subscription Service Changes

How do you handle it when people want to change their service? 

Austin, TX: Do not underestimate how many people will select the smallest cart. Righ

bat, we went $2,100 in the hole because of all the people who were going 

“right thing” and picked 30-gallon carts. In other words, be prepared for 

gram to become successful. Secondly, when it comes to cart exchanges, t

costs for this program are really high. You really need to talk to your polit

everyone and get it all in a nice spreadsheet and realize that you’re going 

bullet for the f irst three to six months of the program. We offer a free ca

the f irst time, and then $15 subsequently. But we were estimating that a 

percent ended up changing in Austin. Instead of doing any surveying up fr

carts, we had to rely on the household size for estimates. 

Pasadena, CA: The thing that my staff keeps coming back to me about is the administrat

making changes. Our rule is, you can’t change service levels more often t

six months. Only every six months, however, even with 27,000 customers, 

there’s somebody changing every single day. We don’t charge for changin

right now, but I think that we must begin to charge for changes in order t

disincentive. Soon, if you want to change, it’s going to cost you $15 to $25 

that change.

 APPENDICES 
ppg pg, gf 

one of the side benef its is that we can lien property. The haulers have liked the 

tem very much because they know they are going to get paid every month. And 

might be a way to sell it in a community that is also planning to take over the b

Seattle, WA: That’s a double-edged sword for us. We do our combined billing with the city’s 

department and drainage and waste water utility. We do have the lien authorit

essentially can turn off the water if somebody doesn’t pay their bill. The proble

that we have to deal with a lot of complaints from their customers, and it does

ways lead to the best results for us in terms of a quality billing system.

State of MN: In some places in Minnesota, we are using a two-tiered (f ixed plus variable 

system that is separate from the garbage collection billing system. The governm

collects some of the f ixed costs to offset it.

Cash Flow

How did you project your cash flow over a certain period of time? 

Mansfield, CT: We collect quarterly and in advance. That solves a lot of the cash f low problem

Seattle, WA: If you’re tight for cash, you need to know what’s coming in and what’s going ou

very important to build in lags in your billing system. There’s going to be some 

time in how people respond to unit pricing, and that tends to work to your ben

You need to be conservative about the rate at which people reduce their solid w

particularly customers using the extra can, especially if you have high extra can 

And, don’t underestimate the portion of the construction and demolition debri

waste stream. Look really hard at wood waste. Wood waste typically comes to 

transfer stations in small loads. It can disappear real fast if you don’t f low cont

or know what’s going on with it. 

70
Pasadena, CA: It also can be used as a point of leverage, in the sense that we can say we 

terprise. We are a business and we have to charge full costs for our opera

Seattle, WA: I think it’s easier to get analytical staff, because there is a perception tha

got big capital programs and big resource acquisition programs, then it te

easier to support getting people like that. The same is true with compute

tends to be easier to support those, which is real helpful.

Mansfield, CT: Our municipal solid waste enterprise fund has grown, matured, and is now 

other activities, such as litter control. The downside to this is that policy m

look to healthy off-line funds for support in the struggle to fund various o

nity programs.

Municipal Versus Private Haulers

Does a municipal program have more of a revenue-cost cushion than a private h

Mansfield, CT: I wouldn’t say more cushion, but def initely more control over costs. We to

private system and added recycling collection and still kept the rates the s

unit pricing program provided more service for the same price as the “fre

system. Mansf ield contracts with two private haulers to implement its sys

Pasadena, CA: You can’t assume that there are a lot of cushions. In Pasadena, we opera

ness and must be competitive. Now, if your municipality owns a landf ill, y

a little subsidy. But, if you do full cost accounting, then you know your tru

eration. Then if you decide you need a cushion, that is part of the decisio

process. Another thing is, don’t underestimate the sophistication of the p

haulers. If you work very carefully with them, then you can learn a lot tog

example, I’m working with my commercial haulers very closely, because 

commercial recycling requirements. We’re planning to adopt unit pricing 

mercial sector for the same reason—to encourage waste reduction and re

commercial haulers need some help from us, but they also should be par

ess of gathering and sharing information.

State of IL: One of the differences between municipal systems and private haulers is t

municipal system, you have a captive audience, and you can reach econo

scale. This is especially important for some of the programs we’ve talked 

as Austin, Pasadena, and Seattle: all are larger population bases where a 

 APPENDICES 
would better allow them to recover their f ixed costs.

Ways To Use Local Ordinances

How can your local government, city council, or state legislature help? 

Pasadena, CA: In order to protect business for waste haulers and recyclers, communities ca

pass ordinances that require a franchise to do business. In this way, local gover

ments can help create a level playing f ield. We designed an ordinance that ma

haulers buy franchises from the city. We put as much f lexibility into the ordina

possible, but, at the same time, established some sort of guidelines. This assures t

ryone’s working under the same terms and conditions, whether it’s one person, 

truck hauler, or a bigger hauling f irm. 

Seattle, WA: Another way to help smaller haulers is by stabilizing transfer station rates and 

posal rates for reasonably long periods of time. This approach uses authority fr

state and local governments to insulate haulers from a lot of risk.

State of MN: If your goal is to encourage source reduction, you might have to employ manda

This is especially important when budgets are tight, since both composting and 

cling cost real money. As an example, in Minneapolis and St. Paul, they enacte

nances that require food establishments to have food packaging that is either

returnable, reusable, or recyclable—that’s really a cutting edge area. Also, don

get to amend your solid waste ordinance to allow for backyard composting and 

some standards and advertise them to protect against rodents and odor.

Methods of Enforcement

Are you finding that illegal dumping is a big issue? 

Pasadena, CA: I think the key here is not to associate illegal diversion with variable rates. T

always going to be some amount of illegal dumping, especially in hard econom

times. So you have a multitude of factors that are contributing to what is gener

called illegal dumping. The key here is education and providing alternatives suc

gal diversions (for example, recycling and composting) and constructive source 

tion actions.

72
State of MN: In all fairness, I want to stress that it’s not unit pricing per se that is drivi

dumping. It is also driven by growing restrictions on what you can put in t

can. I believe restrictions may have more effect on illegal dumping than u

What People Really Do With Their Trash

People say, “My neighbor is the last one who goes to work, and he’s going to put 

garbage in my can.” I have also had professional people say that they are plann

take their trash to work. So how do we address these concerns? 

Mansfield, CT: Again, I would like to underscore that in our experience, neighbors have n

garbage in the cans of other neighbors. We have had some calls—not many—

who swore that their neighbor had put additional recyclables in front of th

bins. We investigated and found out it was the hauler who had put all the 

side of the street so that he could make one stop. 

Austin, TX: We did a study that measured what households would do with garbage 

not f it in their subscription cans. Extra trash had to be labeled with sti

were purchased for $2 each. We received 554 responses to our survey 

following results: 

• 32 percent used the stickers and paid for their excess trash disposal. 

• 29 percent never had excess garbage and never had to use stickers.

• 14 percent saved their excess garbage until the next trash pickup.

• 11 percent stomped the extra garbage into their carts.

• 5 percent threw their extra garbage out at a neighbor’s or friend’s.

• 3 percent threw the extra garbage away at work. 

We also found that most excess garbage came from households that subs

larger, 90-gallon carts. We knew that most 90-gallon carts were purchase

holds with f ive members or less, so we decided that excess garbage was n

lem created by large households that might not be able to reduce waste. 

think some families simply choose not to respond to unit pricing—some famil

that they would rather pay more for larger carts and extra disposal th

or reduce waste. 

 APPENDICES 
and would recommend? 

State of IL: Yard trimmings systems (pay-by-the-bag) can easily be implemented as program

are complementary to unit pricing. If the household properly manages its yard 

mings by composting or keeping grass clippings on its lawns (grasscycling), it ca

avoid disposal costs without much effort. Second, a yard trimmings system cos

most nothing for the community, except relatively low infrastructure costs. And 

trimmings system can reduce the total amount of residential waste by up to 30 

cent, depending on where you live and how great a quantity of yard trimmings 

have initially. I would say that if you had only one program to go along with uni

ing, it should focus on yard trimmings. Illinois instituted a ban on yard trimm

Everyone thought we’d need a lot of new compost sites and thousands of bags 

pick up yard trimmings. In fact, about 60 percent of all homes started grasscyc

Overnight, households just stopped picking up grass clippings, and costs for pic

up plummeted.

Knoxville, TN: In our little city, we generate 20,000 tons of large brush and limbs every year, 

haven’t budgeted for composting equipment. Any suggestions?

State of IL: Instead of buying chippers, you can stockpile the brush at the compost site. It 

smell so you can store it for a long period of time. Also, you can rent a big chip

tub grinder several times a year and then use your mulch for landscaping.

Pasadena, CA: In Pasadena, 15 to 20 percent of the population has signed up for separate col

of yard trimmings. They put out an average of 50 pounds per household per ye

could increase my participation in this program to 30 percent and everybody p

50 pounds, then that’s a big savings on landf ill tipping fees. In addition, yard t

mings are dense compared with plastic, which is light relative to its volume. If 

timate goal is to keep tonnage out of the landf ill, then, dollar for dollar, you ha

lot bigger bang for the buck with a yard trimmings program.

State of PA: In Pennsylvania, many municipalities use their bag system to collect yard trimm

too. In Carlisle, residents put the leaves in plastic bags and the hauler dumps t

out of the bags. Then the hauler actually puts the bags back on the curb so tha

ple can reuse the bags. And, in Allentown, they use paper bags that break dow

the composting process. Some communities use a vacuum system. It varies from

place to place, but plastic bags are pretty widely accepted in Pennsylvania.

Austin, TX: Our yard trimmings do not get burned or go into a landf ill. We mix them with o

age sludge and create a product called “Dillo Dirt” (short for Armadillo). W

74
yg g

What about adding a recycling program? 

Pasadena, CA: If you don’t have curbside recycling in place, you might look at other alte

is extremely expensive to put in curbside recycling. 

Mansfield, CT: Well, we found a big increase in recycling participation when we went fro

recycling to curbside pickup, so I don’t think our unit pricing program wo

well without curbside pickup of recyclables.

Seattle, WA: I think that on the issue of cost of services, you need to know, as best you 

services customers are willing to pay for. Then, if you provide a broad eno

of services at different prices and levels of convenience, you can best serv

ity of people’s needs. I think people are willing to pay for convenience, an

derestimate that.

Also, Seattle has risk-sharing clauses built in to its recycling contract whe

haulers either receive an extra payment or pay us a credit, depending on 

the economy indices and market prices are good or bad. That actually inc

f inancial exposure beyond what we like, but we felt that it was the approp

to do, given the state of markets right now.

State of IL: For some very rural communities it is prohibitively expensive to do curbsid

once a week. In central Illinois, communities have curbside collection of r

once a month, and they found that it’s actually working quite well. When 

to unit pricing, they just offered refuse bag collection once a week and 

collection once a month.

Household Hazardous Waste Programs

Some communities already have household hazardous waste pickup or drop-off

can these programs work with a unit pricing program? 

Durham, NC: You may be able to share expenses with other city agencies. In addition to 

trimmings, curbside recycling, and bulky item pickup programs, we have a 

hazardous waste program. The payment for this came from our wastewat

ment department, not from our landf ill tipping fee. The waste staff are ju

cerned about hazardous waste going into the wastewater system as we ar

going into the landf ill. We may have to change that in the future and spli

 APPENDICES 
How do you avoid confusing your customers when you add a program to your unit

pricing system?

Austin, TX: Through mass media we talk about complementary programs such as recycling 

our Dillo Dirt program. But for unit pricing, and specif ically how to participate 

“Pay-As-You-Throw,” we targeted our audiences more directly by using direct m

newsletter, and doorhangers. In these, we explained how to set out your wheele

cart, where it should face, and how to share with a neighbor (i.e., go ahead an

two carts together on a neighbor boundary at the yard so that it’s fewer stops 

collector). So, we steer topical information to specif ically reach the affected au

ence. We choose to use easy terms to promote the program. It’s important to k

messages simple and clear.

Accommodating Groups With Special Needs

Older Households

How do you cater to the needs of senior citizens?

Pasadena, CA: Our older population began to have some concerns about their ability to actua

move their trash and pay for their trash. What we came up with seems to be w

well. We sent a note that said, “If you are over 62 years of age or if you are dis

call for special rates.” Almost 10 percent of our population has called and abo

percent are on the special rates right now. The special rate for senior citizens i

percent discount. They can choose any service option they want, because we fo

that their needs varied.

Durham, NC: What about the people who don’t have driver’s licenses, or are temporarily dis

they broke their leg and it will be six months before they are mobile again? An

also, do you go back and check to see if the older person has died or if a young 

son is now living there and getting this service? 

Pasadena, CA: First, if they don’t have a driver’s license, we ask for some kind of ID card or b

certif icate. People send all kinds of things; they’re very good about wanting to 

you that they qualify. Secondly, our eligibility criteria say that if there is a yo

person in the home that can roll the trash for the disabled, then that household 

76
How large is your customer service department?

Pasadena, CA: For 27,000 residences, we have three people. One person answers the ph

front and dispatches on the radio for very basic questions. For more deta

tions, I have two more individuals who can respond. But, if the question is ve

it goes up to another level. 

Low-Income Households

How do folks handle the low-income issue?

Seattle, WA: We don’t have any family rates, but we do have a low-income rate. This su

qualif ied low-income, elderly, and handicapped customers for rate assi

include all households who are under the federal poverty line. 

Pasadena, CA: I would concur that if you’re looking for standards, try to f ind something 

tablished standard—not something that you create for your city. That’s wh

problems because Pasadena is a more expensive place to live than other 

nation. It’s diff icult to defend a low-income standard if it’s not already es

Large Households

Could you address the perception that a unit pricing program bashes the family

SRC: That is a very common question at conferences. I guess to me, that’s an e

sue. People who have larger homes pay more for electricity. People who 

people in the house pay more for water and more at the grocery store. T

is not so much aren’t we going to be hurting these families but rather sho

families continue to subsidize these large families? I think that you need t

question around.

 APPENDICES 
Pasadena, CA: Pay special attention to any area of more transitory populations. They are goin

have special needs and special demands. We may need more frequent neighbo

cleanups there. 

Seattle, WA: Also, it is effective to use community groups, and to provide grants to commun

councils. Often, they can do it for less money, and there is a lot of community 

in dealing with the problem. City government is not great at doing it, but comm

groups can do it.

Multi-Family Units

What has been your experience with applying unit pricing to multi-family housing?

Seattle, WA: We’ve had a broad range of problems providing unit pricing to residents of mul

ily housing. These include contract relations, design, enforcement, and deciding

whether the city or haulers will serve these units. Also, if you’re going to do un

ing in a big city with lots of multi-family housing, you have to have a reliable bil

tem that the customer service reps can use. We’ve got 9 inspectors and 22 cus

service representatives, so we’ve got a big staff. But we have 300,000 collectio

week, so even 1 percent of that turning up as phone calls can be a problem. W

about 650 calls a day from customers, and we can deal with that.

Pasadena, CA: I have a problem with landlords who call me when their units are empty. They 

“I’m not using the unit because I’m remodeling it right now, so I shouldn’t have 

pay for trash.” But I still have to have the same operation; I still have to pass b

unit. So, when you set up a unit pricing program, be sure to educate your landl

about this.

78
Additional Examples

I

n Part III of this guide, a six-step process for assembling a unit 

pricing program entitled “Putting the Blocks Together” was 

introduced. The six steps demonstrated how to combine 

projections of cost, demand, and service levels in order to 

arrive at a tentative rate structure for a unit pricing program. The six 

steps provided a general introduction to the process of designing a 

rate structure but did not demonstrate how to accommodate the 

specif ic needs of your community when designing a unit pricing 

program. 

This appendix consists of three examples to assist decision-makers in 

tailoring their programs to the specif ic waste management goals and 

needs of their communities. Each of the three examples outlines a 

community goal and the modif ications to the design and assembly 

process considered necessary to meet that goal. The three examples 

are: 

• A community that wants to keep revenues higher than costs as

it moves from a traditional waste collection program to a unit

pricing program (the transition period.

• A community that wants to provide complementary solid waste

services such as a recycling collection program.

• A community that decides to accommodate citizens with

special needs within its unit pricing program.

 APPENDICES 
• Step 4: Rates. Develop a tentative unit pricing rate structure.

• Step 5: Revenues. Calculate the revenues from unit pricing.

• Step 6: Balance. Evaluate and adjust your preliminary unit

pricing program.

Focusing on the Transition Period

During the transition from a traditional waste management prog

to a unit pricing program, households gradually adjust their habits t

new opportunities and costs introduced by unit pricing. The deman

services from local municipal solid waste agencies might settle to n

lower levels during this time. The result can sometimes be a drop in

revenues for the local agency. Many communities introducing unit

pricing need to know that revenue shortfalls, however, will not be

excessive during the transition period, nor in the subsequent steady

If a community requires the revenue from its unit pricing rates t

cover costs during both the transition period and the steady-state pe

it needs to focus on Steps 1 and 3 of “Putting the Blocks Together.”

During Step 1, the community needs to produce a detailed and accu

estimate of the degree to which households will reduce solid waste

generation to better anticipate changes in revenues that will result f

the unit pricing program. To acquire reliable estimates for this step, 

community can draw on the experience of other communities that h

introduced similar complementary programs, public education effor

container options, and special services.

A detailed estimate from Step 1 will also help the community

accurately anticipate the rate at which costs will settle downward. I

Step 3, the community needs to look at how a reduction in waste vo

will lower costs, such as transportation and tipping fees. Unit pricin

planners then need to test tentative rate structures to find the correc

balance between decreasing revenues and decreasing costs and to ke

the local solid waste agency’s revenues in line with costs during eac

quarter of the transition period, as well as the subsequent steady-sta

80
identify all of its waste management costs and carefully weigh all of its

revenue-raising options to determine if such a program was feasible. 

In Step 3 of “Putting the Blocks Together,” the community can

explore the potential for combining equipment, crews, billing, and

routes for both trash collection and recycling pickup. Careful scheduling

or innovative use of equipment could significantly reduce costs. The

community should also use this step to examine the financial trade-offs

of the two programs; for example, a recycling pickup program could

lower the total amount of waste being landfilled or combusted, reducing

the community’s tipping fees to help cover the costs of providing

recycling collection. 

In Step 4, the community is presented with a variety of pricing

options. These should be examined in light of your overall goals for unit

pricing. For example, if one of your primary goals is to significantly reduce

household waste generation, you can consider charging for all collection

services. Setting substantial per-bag charges for both trash and recyclables

will encourage households to reduce waste. If, however, recycling is

provided for free, citizens would have less incentive to reduce the

amounts of recyclables it generates and the municipal solid waste stream

(trash plus recyclables) could actually rise in volume, driving collection

costs up. Another pricing option consists of setting the per-bag charge

for trash higher than the per-bag charge for recyclables. This rate

structure encourages households to separate recyclables from other trash,

thereby reducing the portion of their household waste that the

community sends to the landfill. 

These examples show how important it is to treat unit pricing rates as

part of a comprehensive pricing system that takes into account all solid

waste services. Charging citizens for both recycling and waste removal

adds complexity and cost to providing municipal solid waste services.

The alternative, however, a unit pricing rate structure that does not

integrate waste collection charges with those for curbside recycling, can

prove expensive, inequitable, and ineffective at achieving the

community’s goals.

 APPENDICES 
community should collect information on the number of low-incom

households that could qualify for lower charges. The community ca

these numbers to adjust revenue estimates and finally arrive at a rat

structure that provides sufficient revenue. Rates should be set to pro

an incentive for source reduction in both low- and high-income

households. However, the community might anticipate that lower ra

for low-income households will provide less incentive to use source

reduction. If this is the case, estimates of the drop in demand for wa

collection services should be revised to meet the effect of the low-in

rate. 

In Step 3, the community needs to examine the potentially great

costs of introducing a low-income rate. Such a rate not only will

decrease anticipated revenues but also require additional administr

costs to identify and separately bill low-income households.

Administrative costs can be kept down if an established income cut

used or other local agencies have already identified the low-income

households in the community. Rent assistance or income assistance

programs might have already identified the low-income households 

community.

82
Bulky waste items - Large items of refuse including, but not limited to, appliances, fu

large auto parts, nonhazardous construction and demolition materials, and trees that c

handled by normal solid waste processing, collection, and disposal methods.

Commercial sector - Includes schools, hospitals, retail establishments, hotels, and

 restaurants. 

Compost - Discarded organic material that has been processed into a soil-like materia

a soil amendment or mulch.

Construction and demolition (C&D) debris - Includes concrete, asphalt, tree stu

other wood wastes, metal, and bricks. (C&D debris is excluded from the definition of m

solid waste used by EPA and the National Recycling Coalition.)

Disposal - Landfilling or combusting waste instead of recycling or composting it.

Diversion rate - A measure of the amount of waste material being diverted for recycling

posting compared with the total amount that was previously thrown away.

Enterprise fund - An independent budget dedicated for a special purpose or activity, 

a local municipal solid waste program. The local agency becomes reliant on the revenue 

through unit pricing or tipping fees and does not receive financial support from the gen

of the local government.

Flow control - A legal or economic means by which waste is directed to particular de

tions (for example, an ordinance requiring that certain wastes be sent to a particular la

ity).

Full cost accounting - The total accounting of all costs and revenues involved in mun

solid waste management, allowing for a standard treatment of the capital costs, future o

tions, and indirect costs.

Household hazardous waste - Products containing hazardous substances that are u

disposed of by individuals, not industrial consumers. These products include, but are no

to, certain kinds of paints, solvents, batteries, and pesticides.

Integrated waste management - The complementary use of a variety of practices 

dle municipal solid waste safely and effectively. Integrated waste management technique

source reduction, recycling (including composting), combustion, and landfilling.

 APPENDICES 
refers to households actively participating in a curbside collection program for recyclable 

materials. 

Recyclables - Products or materials that can be collected, separated, and processed to be u

as raw materials in the manufacture of new products. The recyclable option should be availab

to the majority of residents through curbside recycling programs or fixed recycling centers.

Recycled content - The portion of a package’s weight (excluding coatings, ink, labels, stick

ers, adhesives, or closures) that is composed of postconsumer recycled material.

Residential waste - Waste from single-family and multi-family residences and their yards.

Source reduction (Waste prevention) - The design, manufacture, purchase, or use of m

terials to reduce the amount and/or toxicity of waste. Source reduction techniques include r

ing items, minimizing the use of products that contain hazardous compounds, using only wh

is needed, extending the useful life of a product, and reducing unneeded packaging.

Tipping fees - The fees, usually dollars per ton, charged to haulers for delivering materi

at recovery or disposal facilities. 

Waste generated - Sum of waste recovered and waste disposed of.

Waste stream - A term describing the total flow of solid waste from homes, businesses, in

tutions, and manufacturing plants that must be recycled, burned, or disposed of in landfills; o

any segment thereof, such as the “residential or recyclable” waste stream.

Yard trimmings - The component of solid waste composed of grass clippings, leaves,

twigs, branches, and garden refuse.

84
Blume, D. R. 1992. Under what conditions should cities adopt volume-based pricing fo

tial waste collection. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Office of Management and Budget.

California Integrated Waste Management Board. 1991. Disposal cost fee study: final 

Boston, MA: Tellus Institute. 

Goddard, H. C. 1990. Integrating solid waste management: incentives for reduced waste

creased recycling, and extension of landfill life. Proceedings from the First U.S. Conf

of MSW Management: Solutions for the ’90s. Washington, DC.

Howard, S. 1988. Financing integrated solid waste management systems. Paper prese

the Seventh Annual Resource Recovery Conference. Washington, DC: Shearson Leh

ton, Inc. 

Hsieh, H-N. (No date.) Cost analysis of landfill and its alternatives. Unpublished pap

ark, NJ: New Jersey Institute of Technology. 

Jacalone, D. P. 1992. Per unit pricing: an overview of operational issues. Paper presente

EPA’s Second U.S. Conference on MSW Management: Moving Ahead. Washington, 

League of California Cities. 1992. Financing strategies for integrated waste managem

grams: answers for communities. Sacramento, CA: League of California Cities.

Repetto, R., et al. 1992. Green fees: how a tax shift can work for the environment a

economy. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Discussion and summary of economic 

tives to promote recycling and source reduction. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Office o

Analysis. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Charging households for waste collect

disposal: the effects of weight or volume-based pricing on solid waste management. 

PB91-111484. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Respon

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (No date.) Methods of predicting solid waste 

teristics. Stock no. 5502-0048. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Variable rates in solid waste: handbook fo

waste officials, Volume 1: Executive summary. EPA530-SW-90-084A. Washington, DC: 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

 APPENDICES